Tiger Woods And Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate And Rezko And Climategate And Faith Based Science And Hillary Clinton’s Victory In New Hampshire, Part II

Big Media and David Pecker will not always keep the Obama secrets zipped up.

In January 2008 when the political death of Hillary Clinton was announced, Hillary Clinton and her supporters proved the obituary writers wrong. Instead of slaughter by Obama in New Hampshire, it was Hillary Clinton who won the first primary of the 2008 election season. Almost immediately the charges of election fraud came from Hillary haters.

The Hillary haters were in a froth that Hillary Clinton triumphed in New Hampshire even though Big Media had celebrated her death. Fraud was charged by the Hillary haters. Calls for a recount soon followed. Demands for a recount mounted. Demands for a recount of the vote thundered from the Hillary hater herd.

What was our reaction? We applauded the recount. We wanted a recount. We craved a recount. We wanted the facts and the votes counted with as much accuracy as possible. We did not denounce the Hillary Haters for wanting a recount. We too wanted to make sure all the votes were counted and counted as they were intended to be cast. We were consistent. We wanted the facts. We wrote on January 12, 2008, as recount fever mounted:

As to New Hampshire recounts, if they occur, we can celebrate that wonderful Tuesday, January 8, 2008 once again.

We did not play “hide the salami” (Howard Dean’s ugly contribution to the political phrases lexicon) and denounce those who sought a recount in order to hurt Hillary. We gave our allegiance to the voters and the right of voters to be assured the numbers are not “tricked” or played with. Of course, we knew that Hillary had legitimately won the New Hampshire primary and we smiled at the thought of reliving the victory in New Hampshire.

We were very confident Hillary had legitimately won New Hampshire and we wrote a very important article calledWhat Happened? What Happens Next? Read the article for yourself (we’ll be discussing the article in the next few days again) and see not only why we were sure Hillary had legitimately won, but why we are sure that if the Hillary campaign had followed our advice in that article on what to do next – things would have turned out differently. Check it out – What Happened? What Happens Next?

After the New Hampshire recount, Hillary Clinton was still the winner. After the recount Hillary’s New Hampshire victory was undisputed. The Hillary Haters had to admit Hillary had beaten them. Our immediate reaction to applaud the recount and demand accountability from our public officials, even if it hurt Hillary Clinton, was the right decision.

We recall those days in New Hampshire because Big Media continues to protect Obama and Obama’s refusals to provide documentation and answers and instead provides mockery and self-righteous defenses. In our first, and possibly only article, discussing the Obama Birth Certificate issue we called for documentation and proof in the same way we supported satisfaction of proof with a recount in New Hampshire:

In that dishonest report Politico once again acts dumb by pretending they do not understand the difference between a Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Live Birth. Thus far no Birth Certificate has been produced for Barack Obama and that is what is fueling suspicion and anger.

Instead of asking why no Birth Certificate has been produced by Obama (remember he made all those promises to be “transparent”) Big Media prefers to act dumb and deceive news consumers.

Again, Big Media is acting dumb, pretending not to understand the arguments made by those demanding to see the actual Obama Birth Certificate. Lou Dobbs tried to explain the issue in the best way we have thus far seen, but Obama lover Roland Martin went nuts (as the youtube demonstrates):

Lou Dobbs properly demanded answers and now he is gone from CNN. Dobbs questions regarding immigration and the birth certificate were aggravating factors for his dismissal.

If the Republicans take over the House or Senate next year, the Obama birth certificate will eventually be subpoenaed or a law will likely be passed requiring documentation that candidates for political office must file with elections officials proof the candidate complies with constitutional requirements.

Big Media can pretend, get Obama on magazine cover if they continue to pretend, but the Antoin “Tony” Rezko story will rise again too. When we wrote The Obama Health Plan Obama Supporters Do Not Want To Discuss we noted that Obama’s history and misdeeds on health care in Illinois informs what should be expected from Obama now. Obama’s destruction of universal health care in Illinois presaged his destruction of universal health care now.

What was Obama doing in his plush state senator office that kept him too busy to know that these “struggling families” were without heat “For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997″?

If Obama with all his “community organizer” experience did not know what was happening in his small district office in Chicago, how in blazes does anyone think he will respond to the needs of an American electorate that numbers in the hundreds of millions?

Who did Obama take care of and who was he busy working for – his constituents or his now indicted friend Rezko who helped Obama buy a magnificent heated house?

The Rezko story and the story of how Obama got that big Chicago house (and the big White House) will eventually emerge. Big Media will protect for now, but as Obama’s numbers slip, so will the profit from protecting him.

The Peckers of Big Media will trade profits in sales of magazine covers featuring Obama for the truth. But as Tiger Woods has found out, The Truth Shall Rise, too.

In 2007 David Pecker and his National Enquirer was a Woods protector. David Pecker was a condom of the truth. The condom broke. The Woods story unzipped.

The full Obama story will eventually unzip too. And there are a lot of stories out there.

admin, great article, I am ready for the unzipping! I can’t wait. That big blue light in the skies over Norway was for Obama, afterall, it was a big “O” wasn’t it??? Oh how Zbig and Soros love their little protege. I wonder how much money it cost Soros to have that big blue “O” put in the sky over Norway to beckon in their little puppet?

There seems to be a pattern going on here. Bambi gets some big award and is on the tube all the time getting it, while Hillary also gets an award of some prominence and it is not covered. It seems that the Soros clan likes to rub it in that she isn’t at the top. We can say for sure she deserves her awards and he doesn’t.

As a rule, the revelation that a married athlete (or actor, or rock star, or politician) has conducted extramarital affairs with bevy of “party girls” may titillate, but rarely has the power to shock. In those realms, these things happen. Entitled men. Willing women. Deceived wives. What’s new?

So what is it about Tiger Woods that makes his cheating so different from the usual that ten days on, the nation is still discussing revelations of conquests, trysts, payoffs, and physical injuries inflicted by a golf club?

Sure, there’s normal prurience at work. But mostly, we are interested because Tiger Woods, who may legitimately be the best golfer ever, had been turned into an all-purpose icon: a man of personal rectitude, a lovely smile, apparent openness; a family man, with a lovely wife and two adorable babies. And of course, he was our first living embodiment of the collective hope for racial reconciliation. Who knew that the early reports of his betrayed wife Elin swinging at him with a golf club constituted literal icon-smashing?

We are staring because we’ve been had. Betrayed. We see now that the image was all a fraud. The talent was real. But the things that made the public like Tiger personally — the low-key demeanor, manners, and sweet smile of countless sports-page photos, magazine covers, political analogies, and most important, product endorsements, was an act. That would be betrayal enough. But it wasn’t just Woods’ act. The larger lesson here is about how much artifice — sustained, deliberate deception — goes into the construction of a public persona when there is profit to be made or power to be had.

Jack Shafer, the Slate media columnist, spells out how this transpired. In the beginning, Shafer notes, Woods was your normal young, single, randy, skirt-chasing, heterosexual athlete. Then, almost overnight, he became a golf phenom, and

… for business reasons — Buick, Nike, Gatorade, Gillette, EA Sports, and Accenture being among them — Woods decided to exfoliate from his public image all things base, carnal, and even personal.

The Tiger Woods that was constructed for corporate consumption was spotless and smooth, an edgeless brand easily peddled to sheikhs and shakers.
Given how desperately we want to believe in a human god, it didn’t take much peddling from Team Tiger for us to accept Woods as a modern deity. With every new tournament victory, every new product endorsement, his divinity grew. His marketers made him a symbol of tolerance and brotherhood, and his father, Earl Woods, spoke gibberish about his son being a creature of destiny. Getting married and having children only added to Woods’ marketability. I’m divine and monogamous and the center of a happy nuclear family. And we ate it up. So now that the “real” Woods has been revealed … we’re embarrassed by the gap between who we believed Woods to be and who he really is.

The unusually sleazy reality, however true to our darker knowledge of human nature, is especially disappointing because of the wholesome image we’ve been sold for so long. “Modern deity” isn’t much of an overstatement. Even now, the same huge corporate effort that went into creating the billion-dollar nice-guy persona is hard at work trying to keep it alive — because if it dies, too many people stand to lose too much money.

Think about the heroic efforts to “save” Woods’ marriage. In addition to her prenup — which only “vests” after a certain amount of time, apparently the much-wronged wife will receive a huge payment — $55 million, according to some reports — to stay with him for another two years. That would explain why she hasn’t exited stage right. And the millions reportedly paid to many among the text-message-wielding, semi-pro women involved suggests the magnitude of everyone’s stake in reconstructing an image able to hawk corporate goods.

Nor was Woods’ behavior unknown — except to the public. In one instance reporters had photos of a “transgression”…committed in a church parking lot, no less. These journalists agreed to keep it secret — if Tiger posed for a cover story at Men’s Fitness Magazine — a cover that would sell huge numbers. Normally Woods wouldn’t have been available, since he had an exclusive contract with Conde Nast’s Golf Digest. With full understanding of the situation, Conde Nast allowed the rival cover because he too profited from having Tiger remain an icon.

Note that this industry-wide coverup of Woods’ cheating (and apparently his personal nastiness, arrogance, and general non-cuddly nature) is not a small, secret plot by dedicated fanatics. Rather, it is a set of interlocking self-interests manifested in sustaining the pristine image of this one sports icon to keep cash coming in.

But enough about Tiger the man, who is, after all, only a golfer. Let’s move on to Tiger the metaphor. Because anyone with four functioning brain cells gets that if this comprehensive a charade can be sustained for a decade as Woods and those around him amassed billions, it can happen elsewhere. It can happen right in front of our eyes.

If I were watching the public’s disgust with the newly revealed Tiger Woods from an office in the West Wing, I’d be concerned. Because Barack Obama is about as completely manufactured a political character as this nation has seen. His meteoric rise, without the inconvenience of a public record or accomplishments, and the public’s willing suspension of critical evaluation of his résumé allowed his handlers and the media to project whatever they wanted to on his unfurrowed brow.

Ironically, the parallels have nothing to do with race. The Obama campaign did explicitly attempt to borrow the from the then-universal Tiger Woods appeal to allay any discomfort voters might have had with a mixed-race politician. They constructed a persona that would make the American electorate comfortable with a barely-known, first-term senator with a left wing voting record, a deliberately obscured personal and professional past, and no traditional qualifications for high office.

After a year in the spotlight, Barack Obama, hailed as a brilliant man and a creature of destiny who would heal us all, is himself falling rapidly to earth. (Thankfully, his family life remains above suspicion.) The flaws that were airbrushed out of the candidate photos are becoming glaringly obvious under day-to-day scrutiny of his public performance in the White House.

And while it doesn’t matter if another athlete is an adulterer, it matters a lot if the president is revealed to be an inexperienced, excessively ideological, and weak man who is naïve about the world and uncomfortable exercising American power during a time of war. It matters if nothing in his training would have equipped the president to understand what it takes to stimulate job growth, or ameliorate a recession, or to end an overseas conflict successfully. It matters that he is uninterested in the science behind global warming — and wishes to use the issue to amass power and reorder society. It matters that he has no interest in the construction of policy.

Ultimately, Woods is an exceptional golfer with a character problem. Barack Obama, by contrast, is not an exceptional, or even particularly competent, leader. But because so many politicians, interest groups and factions have an interest in his continued presence, no one is ready to reveal the man behind the curtain just yet.

But many voters from both the center and the far left who believed in the Obama magic are increasingly dismayed by watching the human god fall to earth. This is a major problem because, as Shafer notes, the impulse of the betrayed is to tear their fallen deities to shreds

This article doesn’t have to do with the above conversation but I wanted to post it because we have had “talks” among ourselves, if the Tea Party is real, repub, or what…it is real…from American Thinker
****************

December 10, 2009
Why Leaderless Tea Parties Are Beating the GOP
By Richard Viguerie
Rasmussen reports that the Tea Party Movement, which percolated only months ago, is beating the Grand Old Party.

That’s amazing — a nascent grassroots movement is more popular than a long-established political party — and it’s good news.

Republican Party leaders should be embarrassed. Instead, the Republican establishment disdains this populist uprising. Rather than embracing this genuine movement, establishment politicians and consultants are calculating how to co-opt, sideline, or even defeat the newest phenomenon in politics: tea partiers.

That would be arrogance, not leadership. It could be the downfall of Republican leaders, who have taken the Party of Reagan to the Party of No — meaning No Ideas, No Leadership, and No Principles.

What’s driving the Tea Party phenomenon? Robert Stacy McCain writes at American Spectator about one tea partier, Rhonda Lee Welsch, who says, “‘It’s a systemic problem,’ discussing the top-down approach of leaders in both parties who seem indifferent to the concerns of ordinary Americans.”

People realize that big-government career politicians aren’t going to save America (if it’s not too late for that already). Like a modern-day court of Louis XVI, our leaders are disconnected from the people. An uprising is taking place, yet our political leaders seem more interested in playing a good round of golf.

As I wrote not long ago:

Americans are concluding more and more that many of the current problems we face are caused by unrestrained and corrupt government. It is becoming apparent to millions of voters the solution lies in electing officials who understand, respect and abide by the Constitution as much as we citizens are expected to follow the law.

The Tea Party Movement, however, is about more than electing new politicians, although that will be one of its consequences. What’s happening in the tea parties is that people are actually using the Constitution to ground and form policy choices, and as a constructive means to hold the political establishment accountable.

Our constitutional system of checks and balances is currently in shambles. Congress refuses to hold the president accountable constitutionally, and the courts refuse to hold the other two branches accountable.

This is why the 10th Amendment is becoming so popular within the Tea Party Movement, and why that Amendment is becoming the bane of statists in the political establishment. The 10th Amendment, intended as a fundamental, “systemic” protection of our constitutional form of government, says that all powers not given expressly to the federal government by the text of the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. It is a fail-safe against tyranny.

The 10th Amendment, which has been collecting dust in the closet, is a natural resource for the “leaderless” Tea Party Movement. The way to restrain the abuses of power and create a culture of freedom and economic prosperity lies within the Constitution itself. Tea partiers will use the Constitution, which has been so disregarded by the three branches of government, to tame the beast of tyrannical big government. The 10th Amendment is one key to overcoming what Ms. Welsch articulates for all of us as a “systemic problem.”

One of the best books I’ve read in recent years is The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom.

Read it, and you’ll better understand why the Tea Party Movement is surging while the Republican Party isn’t. The book describes the success of leaderless organizations using the analogy of a spider, which is killed when its head is cut off, versus the starfish, which, when a tentacle is cut off, grows a new one.

The great Aztec civilization existed for centuries before the Spaniards arrived on the continent. Cortés told the Aztec leader, Montezuma, give me your gold or your life. Montezuma gave Cortés his gold, and Cortés killed him anyway. The Aztec civilization did not survive the loss of its leader. The head of the spider had been cut off.

The Apaches, on the other hand — a leaderless “starfish” society — survived hundreds of years of the Spaniards’ trying to do what they did to the Aztecs. As Brafman and Beckstrom write:

You wanted to follow Geronimo? You followed Geronimo. You didn’t want to follow him? Then you didn’t. The power lay with each individual.

We are seeing the “starfish” Tea Party Movement, with candidates running in both Democratic and Republican primaries. When they are shut out by the party establishments, as happened in New York’s 23rd congressional district, they are running as independents or under third parties.

“Starfish” tea partiers are learning how to organize, raise money, and utilize the alternative media in record numbers. They are voicing their opposition to unaccountable Big Government and promoting productive policy alternatives through the Founders’ guiding principles.

From the tea parties, the grassroots, and the alternative media, we are seeing new leaders emerge. Like our Founders, they understand that their strength of leadership does not come from a political party, but from consent of the governed. That is why they don’t hitch their wagons to one person or one party.

Talk radio host Mark “The Great One” Levin discussed recently how Reagan spoke not of “his” administration, but of “this” administration. Levin noted how Reagan understood his power came from the people, not from the office he held. Reagan didn’t read The Starfish and the Spider, but he understood the principles outlined therein. The successors to Reagan’s GOP do not understand those principles, and they seem more beholden to staying in Washington than saving America. They are “spiders.”

The Tea Party Movement is determined to save America. Republican Party leaders would be unwise to try to co-opt, sideline, or defeat it. Perhaps they should welcome the new leadership into the party as their single most promising survival tactic.

Yes, confloyd I noticed for all the well deserved awards Hillary is given, coverage of her accolades is all but non-existent.

This was my thought earlier today reading ABM90’s daily post:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Daily Appointments Schedule for December 10, 2009

Washington, DC

December 10, 2009

——————————————————————————–

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON:

10:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with His Excellency Gordan Jandrokovic, Foreign Minister of Croatia, at the Department of State.
(PRESS AVAILIBILITY FOLLOWING BILATERAL MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 11:05 A.M.)
Pre-set time for cameras: 10:15 a.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance.
Final access time for writers and still photographers: 10:45 a.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance.

1:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton receives the Eleanor Roosevelt Lifetime Achievement Award in Human Rights for her Steadfast Leadership and Devotion To Women’s Rights as Human Rights, via Videoconference from the Department of State.CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE – A TRANSCRIPT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOLLOWING THE VIDEOCONFERENCE)

2:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts the 2009 Department of State Retirement Ceremony, at the Department of State.(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

The revelations went from every day to every hour after Eldrick Tont Woods slammed his Escalade into that fire hydrant and tree during Thanksgiving Weekend. Now there isn’t a nanosecond that passes without something else happening in the suddenly endless soap opera called As The Tiger Goes From Roaring to Purring.

This feels like that O.J. thing.

Not only that, the coverage of Michael Vick’s dogfighting issues was in the vicinity of white Broncos, bloody gloves and Johnny Cochran.

To a lesser extent, there were those controversies for the Keeping It Real King named Allen Iverson, otherwise known as A.I., or The Answer, or just plain trouble, especially since he wasn’t practicing. There also was that other initials guy, T.O., and his messes, combined with those of other NFL knuckleheads of yore, ranging from Randy Moss to Chad Whatever He Wishes To Be Called These Days.

MORE ON TIGER

Here’s my point: During the early and intense stretches when the media continued to spend every news cycle exposing the personal flaws of O.J., Vick, Iverson and the rest, there was a different response inside the African-American community to those athletes who happen to be black compared to its response to Woods who happens to be, well, I’ll get to that in a moment.

Those other athletes had one of the world’s most supportive casts. They had an overwhelming number of folks in the African-American community standing firmly and loudly behind them — no matter what. They had Jesse and Al waiting to pounce in the background, if they hadn’t done so already. They had black ministers across the country asking for special prayers in their name. They had folks in barbershops throughout African-American communities talking about conspiracies.

Mostly, despite everything those in black America had seen or heard about the events surrounding O.J., Vick, Iverson and the rest, they had unconditional love.

For Woods, not so much.

Actually, not at all, and Woods has nobody to blame but Woods.

It goes back to April 1997 when he famously took a nine-iron to the face of blacks by telling Oprah Winfrey on her couch that he wasn’t black. He said he wasn’t white, either. He said, given that his father is black and that his mother is Asian, he spent his youth inventing a word for himself called “Cablinasian.”

Just like that, in the hearts of many African-Americans, Woods was on his own. They still cherished his splendid journey in search of becoming more prolific than Bobby Jones, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. That’s because they still viewed Tiger as black, whether he liked it or not. It’s just that, despite O.J. and Bonds, for instance, who joined Woods in having mixed marriages to the chagrin of some, and despite O.J. and Bonds going to extremes to project colorless images throughout their careers, they never pushed away their African-American heritage in a dramatic way.

Tiger did. In fact, he did so by mentioning that Cablinasian silliness with his black father smiling by his side on national television.

I was among a slew of African-Americans who weren’t amused back then, and I wrote as much as a sports columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Journal Constitution. The headline said everything you need to know about the tone of my column: “Wake up, Tiger. This is America and that means you’re black.”

Needless to say, television and radio airways sizzled over my Tiger comments deep in the heart of Dixie. This was before e-mail became popular, so the newspaper was flooded with phone messages, letters and faxes.

In the midst of it all, I got a call at home from Chicago.

Somebody named “Oprah” was on the other line.

“Yes, this really is Oprah,” said THAT Oprah, adding that she was a frequent reader of my column. She wanted me to appear on her show the following week to discuss, not only what I wrote about Tiger’s “Cablinasian” statement, but about Fuzzy Zoeller’s remarks after Woods won the first of his four Masters that spring. Let’s just say that Zoeller wasn’t exactly gracious after he bombed in Augusta, Ga., back then while the upstart Woods crushed his competition.

Then Zoeller thought about the Master’s Club Championship Dinner that features the previous year’s winner selecting the menu. Zoeller said, “So you know what you guys do when (Woods) gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year. Got it?”

Afterward, Zoeller smirked, snapped his fingers and added while walking away from the cameras, “Or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve.”

To translate: Zoeller thought Woods was black — you know, whether Woods liked it or not, and that’s what I said on Oprah’s show. In addition, I repeated what I wrote for the Atlanta newspaper, “Tiger Woods is fooling himself to think that just because he’s Tiger Woods, he has transcended everything else in society. This is the real world, and in the real world of America, the one-drop rule still applies.

Follow Us on Twitter Friend Us on Facebook
“In the old days, there used to be laws on the books that said, if you have one drop of black blood in you, you are black. Well, that’s still unofficially the case in the minds of many in America. One drop of black blood, and you’re black.

Now, 12 years after I delivered those remarks to Tiger, Oprah and the nation, Tiger still is black. That said, whether he views himself as black, Asian, Cablinasian or Martian, it doesn’t matter. He is in trouble. He is getting pounded by legitimate and illegitimate reports about everything you can imagine. His slew of mistresses (almost exclusively blondes, just like his wife). The possibility that he was under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs when he crashed his SUV near his home nearly two weeks ago and several non-Tiger news conferences ago. The fact that the image that he carefully nurtured as Wally Cleaver was a fraud.

He really was Eddie Haskell.

It’s all a shame, really. So is the fact that most of black America couldn’t care less, because that’s the way Woods wanted it.

New evidence emerged today that a mysterious spiral light display which appeared in the dark skies over Norway yesterday morning was caused by an embarrassing failed test launch of a jinxed Russian missile.

The Bulava missile was test-fired from the Dmitry Donskoi submarine in the White Sea early on Wednesday but failed at the third stage, the Russian military confirmed today.

New video also emerged today showing a simulation of what would happen if such a missile were to fail – video that bore an uncanny resemblance to the light display seen in the Norwegian sky.

during an office move, [CRU] discarded computer tapes and paper records containing years of original weather-station observations.

========================

CRU discarded THEIR COPIES of data sent by regional weather stations (after totalling the bottom lines). The regional weather stations STILL HAVE the original data. (And doubtless backup copies exist at various levels.)

This kind of dishonest account makes me distrust all of CRU’s critics.

Former vice president Al Gore, both praised and derided for his eco-vangelism, talks about being rich, attending Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, greening his Tennessee mansion and flying commercially to the Copenhagen climate summit in a new interview posted online.

Gore, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and author of the best-selling An Inconvenient Truth, received much criticism for the high electric bills his own home near Tennessee was generating. This is what he tells The Daily Beast’s LLoyd Grove:

“We went through a two-year effort to get the zoning changed to allow us to put 33 solar panels on the roof. We dug seven geothermal wells. What electricity we do use, we buy solely from renewable sources, which is a little more expensive.”

Gore acknowledges that most people couldn’t afford such renovations, which is why he says he supports public policies to make them accessible to low- and middlle-income people. In 2007, after the renovations, Gore’s 10,000-square-foot home — more than 80 years old — won the gold or second-highest rating from the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program. At that time, the Asssociated Press said his overhaul reduced the home’s summer electrical consumption by 11% from the prior year, despite a record heat wave.

Subsequently, Gore’s received other criticism. In June 2008, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said his home’s electricity usage rose 10% over the past year and would be enough to power 20 homes. It didn’t mention how much natural gas he used, which I expect has dropped considerably. After all, those seven geothermal wells require electricity but save a lot on natural gas.

Other excerpts from the interview:

When you go to Copenhagen next week, are you going to fly commercial?

Oh yeah, flying out of Newark.

Most people in your position would be flying private at this point, but you can’t because as soon as you do, people will talk.

I wouldn’t anyway.

How is your relationship with Bill Clinton? It’s obviously been through quite an evolution.

Yeah, but we’re very good friends, and he was at the house in Nashville a few weeks ago. We had a good, long visit of three hours. As I said, I just talked to him on the phone three or four days ago. I was looking forward to Chelsea’s wedding — that’s a happy occasion.

How does it feel to be rich?

I have enjoyed the business world much more than I thought that I would. I’ve never particularly cared about money or been motivated by money, but I enjoy the challenge of it, and it’s very interesting. And I have pursued a business structure that at least gives me the feeling that I’m doing good while doing well.

I used to like Barbara Walters, but I think she has worked too long past her prime, her mind seems to be failing as she has named Michelle Obama as the most “Fascinating Person of 2009”. Wow! I guess she finally get an award for something.

Bwabwa always prided herself in lining up with the winner. At least thats the type of person I perceive her to be. This last election, she didn’t miss. She supported Obama openly and well. Unfortunately, she has made herself irrelevant, no one cares- especially, Obama.

I really tried watching the Joy Behar show- It’s a shame to have to endure her earsplitting voice and wind up un-entertained and left searching for migraine relief.

JanH, I think this is why they are tying her with David Milliband. I found this at Wikipedia. They want desparately to tie her with Obama the Marxist.

David Wright Miliband (born 15 July 1965) is a British Labour politician, who has been the Member of Parliament for South Shields since 2001, and is the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He is the son of the late Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband. He and his younger brother Ed Miliband are the first siblings to sit in the Cabinet simultaneously since Austen and Neville Chamberlain.

just want to add that i went to a large group affair this evening ( in dimocratic broward county) and the consensus is that Barak ‘nobel peace prize winner’ Obama and Michelle ‘most fascining person of the year’ Obama are the most OVERRATED PEOPLE out there receiving accolades and recognition for doing nothing and accomplishing nothing…he has his teleprompter and she has her arms…and that’s about it!

Obama is as far from a Marxist as it gets. Marxists do not bail out banks. They, quite cheerfully, let them fail and then go to the pub in celebration. Obama is a conservative – in some ways, more conservative than Reagan. He is complete pro-business and sides with big business over ordinary citizens 100% of the time. Marxists do not bail banks. Ever. Under any circumstances. No Marxist would ever tolerate the health care reform that Obama is cooking up – it is way, way, way to the right of anything they would tolerate. He’s anti-union, anti-choice and pro-NAFTA – he’s a Reaganite, not a Marxist.

Marxists hate Obama and hate everything he has done. They always saw him as a right winger and he is a rightwinger. He doesn’t have a liberal bone in his body. He is an elitist snob who hates ordinary people.

basement angel
December 11th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Obama is as far from a Marxist as it gets. Marxists do not bail out banks. They, quite cheerfully, let them fail and then go to the pub in celebration. Obama is a conservative – in some ways, more conservative than Reagan. He is complete pro-business and sides with big business over ordinary citizens 100% of the time. [….] No Marxist would ever tolerate the health care reform that Obama is cooking up – it is way, way, way to the right of anything they would tolerate. He’s anti-union, anti-choice and pro-NAFTA – he’s a Reaganite, not a Marxist.

And she’s moving the race rating to “Lean Republican” – a very rare instance where the political insider publication has put an incumbent’s chances of winning in such dire territory:

It’s been obvious since the start of the cycle that Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd would face the toughest campaign of his long political career. Even Dodd has publicly acknowledged his vulnerability. He got his campaign up and running early and started running flights of ads last spring.

Still, it is increasingly clear to both independent analysts and Democratic leaders that Dodd is just too badly damaged to have a decent shot at getting re-elected, almost regardless of who wins the Republican nomination. Democrats have given Dodd time to attempt to repair his problems, but nothing appears to have helped enough to salvage his position….

These numbers jibe with our view that Dodd is about as unelectable as unindicted incumbents get. And now that Democratic leaders have reached a similar conclusion, the question is how public they have to get before Dodd takes the hint that it is time to exit the race, and how messy the situation becomes…

As a general policy, the Cook Political Report does not rate unindicted incumbents worse than “Toss Up,” at least until Labor Day of the election year since some endangered incumbents have a tendency to make comebacks despite appearing hopeless early in the cycle. There have been some rare exceptions to this policy over the years, and Dodd now joins that small group. The race moves from Toss Up to Lean Republican.

Re tree rings:One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.
Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.
Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.
In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

Thank You, Sarah Palin, for seeing what I see and speaking out on Climate-Fraud Gate without having to get permission from group-think to speak Truth to Power.

Copenhagen’s political science

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

“Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-tax and trade plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-tax-trade program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should be boycotting Copenhagen.

In the 1970s and early ’80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a “New International Economic Order.” The NIEO’s essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality — wealth redistribution via global socialism — with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hardworking citizens of the democracies to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early ’80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend clean-air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn’t lurking in CIA cloak. He’s knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

“One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.”

~~~~~~~~~~~

As we stand still to take the pummeling Congress is about to deliver on every taxpayer left standing. Right!

So I guess less-is-more economizing in the current environment hasn’t made it into bambi and meme’s vocabulary yet. I wonder how much taxpayer money is going into this mess…

‘Tis the Season for Holiday Parties at the White House’

More than 50,000 Guests Expected to Attend 28 Parties in December

By KAREN TRAVERS
Dec. 11, 2009—

Welcoming friends and relatives during the holiday season can be stressful for even the most patient and experienced hosts. What if your guest list included more than 50,000 people over the course of three weeks?

This month, President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama become the entertainers-in-chief, hosting nearly 30 parties during their first holiday season at the White House.

More than 50,000 people have received invitations to attend one of the 17 holiday parties and 11 open houses at the White House that started last week and will continue right up until the Obamas leave for vacation at the end of the month.

This isn’t just throwing open the White House doors and putting out some drinks and appetizers. The Obamas will attend each party, greet guests in a receiving line, pose for photos at most of the events and even mingle among the partygoers at a select few.

This year, the holiday season parties are under increased, and perhaps unprecedented, scrutiny after the incident at the Obamas’ first state dinner, when two aspiring reality television stars were able to get past security despite not having an invitation. The “gatecrashers” incident put an unflattering focus on social secretary Desiree Rogers, who is the principle coordinator for social events at the White House and for the president and first lady.

The Salahi gatecrash also had a quick impact on the way the White House admits guests to holiday parties. Unlike the night of the state dinner, when the Salahis were admitted by Secret Service, White House staffers now stand at security checkpoints to help the Secret Service manage guests. “We had staff at the security checkpoint to ensure that if there was any confusion about lists, those would be double-checked with somebody representing the social office,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said after the first party of the season on Dec. 1. “That was an assessment made based on something that we believed could have been added, and we’ve made those changes as of last night.”

The change follows the procedures used by previous administrations, where a representative from the social secretary’s office would attend to security checkpoints for events.

White House on Display for Holiday Visitors

The Obamas pledged to open up the White House and make it a more open, welcoming place to average Americans. They invited 30,000 visitors to the White House for the largest ever Easter egg roll on the South Lawn, organized a music series featuring artists and students, and started the year by hosting weekly cocktail parties to get to know members of Congress, their families and other key figures in Washington. But so far, the holiday season at the White House has been similar to those of past administrations. There have been parties for members of Congress, congressional staff and White House staff.

Coming up are parties for the military, the Secret Service, White House residence staff and even the media corps that covers the administration. Guests at the White House holiday parties get to explore the mansion’s state floor, which holds famous rooms like the East, Red, Green and Blue rooms and the State Dining Room.

The president’s Marine Band entertains guests with traditional carols throughout the evening.

Visitors can be as snap-happy as they like: Cameras are allowed in all of the rooms, a rare chance to take pictures of the artwork hanging on the mansion’s walls and to take in the holiday decorations.

The theme of this year’s decorations is “reflect, rejoice and renew.” The displays are scaled down from previous seasons in an acknowledgement of the tough economic times and also to highlight the Obamas’ emphasis on recycling. Some of the decorations, in fact, are from previous administrations, but with an Obama twist.

“We decided to do something just a little different,” Michelle Obama said earlier this month. “We took about 800 ornaments left over from previous administrations, we sent them to 60 local community groups throughout the country, and asked them to decorate them to pay tribute to a favorite local landmark and then send them back to us for display here at the White House.”

Guests still will be able to admire an annual, mouthwatering White House tradition — the gingerbread replica of the president’s mansion, made over the last six weeks by White House pastry chef Bill Yosses. The 400-pound White House is made out of white chocolate and gingerbread with flourishes of marzipan to create the vegetables in the Obamas’ garden and the furniture in the State Dining Room.

The best part? The entire gingerbread house is edible, save for the copper chandelier that hangs in the replica of the State Dining Room. But hands off: It’s not meant for the guests to taste-test.

Residence Staff Puts in Overtime During Holiday Season

The holiday season is not a time of merriment for the hardworking staff of the White House residence. Someone has to make the desserts and hors d’oeuvre crab cakes for all of those guests, and spruce up the place to accept visitors. “Working on all that is a horrific experience,” joked former White House executive chef Walter Scheib. “During the Christmas season, for those 20-some days, the chefs will be somewhere between 100 and 110 hours a week.”

Scheib said that all of the food is fresh and made from scratch in the White House’s relatively tiny kitchen — 28 feet by 29 feet, according to Scheib. He called it a “gigantic logistical push” to serve the large number of guests. “We would make several hundred thousand crab cakes, individually, one-by-one,” Scheib said. “We would go through between 1,200 and 1,500 pounds of crab meat.”

So can the White House kitchen staff just say one night that it’s time for leftovers or cereal for dinner for the first family? “That works really well until you actually say it and they find someone else to do the job,” Scheib said, laughing. Scheib estimates that as many people come through the White House in the month of December as the rest of the year combined.

After playing hosts for the entire month of December, it’s no wonder that the Obamas are planning to take some time off for vacation at Christmas and New Year’s — and not bringing 50,000 of their closest friends with them.

Much like Wednesday was once Prince Spaghetti Day, Tuesday is fast becoming political juggling day for the Obama administration. In his Afghanistan speech last week, the president struggled to keep his dueling objectives (surging but not staying) in the air without crashing into each other. In Tuesday’s speech re-setting his economic policy, the president similarly strained to sate the left’s demands for more spending on job creation to deal with the unnerving unemployment numbers and the center’s demands for more fiscal restraint to deal with the exploding debt.

By typical Washington standards, the economic balancing act was executed more deftly. Unlike the confusing Afghanistan policy announcement, Obama’s new jobs plan offered a politically appealing, easy-to-understand solution to the budgetary box we’re now in: Tap the TARP. We can have our cake and spend it too, the president and his staff explainers suggested, by using leftover or returned bank bailout money to bail out the middle class with a series of targeted, short-term incentives to increase hiring. Deficit neutral, populist popular–what’s not to like?

Well, clever and simple is not the same as hope and change. It’s certainly not the fundamental break from politics as usual and tired conventional thinking that–forget about Obama’s pre-crash campaign promises–the times absolutely demand now. Indeed, we’re confronting an unprecedented combination of grave economic challenges that, while not as immediate as the financial collapse we avoided last fall, may be more consequential. Yet with his difference-splitting speech today, the president seemed to be signing a political DNR statement, signaling that he is not prepared to take any more heroic measures–or even out-of-the-box ones–to save our prosperity.

That’s not to say Team Obama is giving up or doing nothing. The modest job-creation proposals the administration unveiled Tuesday individually have their merits, and they seem much more mission-focused than the mish-mashed stimulus bill that Congressional Democrats constructed. But no one is going to confuse the new programs separately or collectively with the scope and innovation of the experiments Franklin Roosevelt pursued the last time we had an employment forecast this grim. Moreover, not even the administration will argue that this package is up to the task of making a noticeable dent in the unemployment rate, let alone rebuilding our decimated job base.

That’s because the new jobs plan was not designed to be a policy game-changer but a political stopgap, to tide the public over and buy the White House time for the second half of the stimulus plan to kick in. They are betting the national farm–soybeans to servers–that the old stimulus combined with the new “stimulus lite” will provide enough demand to spur enough new hiring to calm the country. That might be a sensible strategy–if the original stimulus bill had actually been targeted at private sector job growth rather than strengthening public safety nets, protecting government jobs and paying off Democratic constituencies.

But knowing the stimulus bill’s limitations–and more import the limited impact it has had to date–the White House is bordering on Bushian in stubbornly sticking with this approach as the centerpiece of his recovery agenda. Even if you grant that it was successful in slowing the hemorrhaging of jobs, as many economists contend, it is hard to imagine that quartering down on the current policy will succeed in spurring sustained job creation and solving the crisis of confidence the Great Recession has engendered.
What was even more disconcerting about the president’s re-set speech was what it said– and what it did not say–about the other side of the economic ledger, our busted budget. Obama and his team concede we’re on an unsustainable fiscal path; it is one of their central arguments for urgent action on health care (and raising taxes to pay for it). Yet there’s a serious disconnect here between president’s public rhetoric and his policy responses. We’re looking at deficits of $1 trillion plus through 2011 (and $700 billion for the rest of the next decade), a $12 trillion debt, crippling obligations in Medicare and Social Security, and the best the president could do is raid one crisis piggy bank to fill another and avoid making the situation worse?

To be fair, some of the excess TARP money will also be used to pay down the deficit, a point the White House is stressing this week. But that only will make a small difference, and do nothing to affect the entrenched structural budget problems we have. We are going to have to raises taxes or cut spending in serious amounts to close that gap, and Congress’ appetite for more tax increases after the health care bill will be smaller than a supermodel diet. Yet in spite of that reality, the president still has not put out a major spending reduction package, and gave no signs in his speech that he will do so any time soon.

This unwillingness to make tough decisions strikes me as arguably the worst leadership failure of the Obama presidency. That’s in large part because cutting outlays and shifting resources would be such a relatively easy lift in this environment. For starters the federal government is filled with programs and set-asides that are either outdated, wasteful, largely symbolic or designed to serve narrow interest groups. And the administration (not to mention many think tanks) has already identified dozens of suitable targets in budget hit lists. No one would be better positioned than Obama, given his baseline support on the left, to call for the elimination and reduction of programs that we can’t defend as national priorities at this moment.

But wait a minute, veteran Washington observers say. The interest groups almost always win in blocking even the most symbolic cuts. Why bother? Well, we’re operating in a different climate with different rules now, and Obama’s proven ability to rally the masses gives him a trump card over the special interest pleaders. The president has already succeeded in converting the student loan program to direct government lending, over the strenuous objections of the banking industry, to pay for more Pell grants. There’s no reason he can’t repeat that kind of reform in other areas to prevent the country from going bankrupt.

OK, but even if Obama succeeded in passing major cuts to discretionary spending, that won’t come close to closing the trillion-plus budget deficit. True enough, and that’s a powerful argument for including at least a serious entitlement reform commission in any spending reform plan. But the other program cuts would make a big dent in the president’s growing trust deficit with swing voters, who are the most likely to be spooked by the massive government expansion over which Obama has presided. In particular, it would show the strength that many on both sides of the aisle say has been missing in this White House and boost public confidence in the president’s leadership.

Ideally, Obama would have pursued this kind of priority-setting and belt-tightening much earlier in the year; that, I suspect, would have made his health care and energy plans at least somewhat less scary and more palatable to many moderates and independents. But the need–for the country’s stability and the president’s standing–still remains. And the president would still have received major credit yesterday if he had announced a robust, balanced agenda of spending cuts and reforms that gored oxen on both sides of the aisle, to go with the many tax increases he has already proposed.

This was the great missed opportunity of the president’s speech–the watchdog that didn’t bark. He could have done more than repackage his economic policy; he could have helped restore public confidence in his leadership and our shared future. Instead, the juggler-in-chief did the opposite of his Afghanistan speech–he settled for the safe play and in doing so dropped the most important ball.

I did some research and came up with a list of important awards and ho

nors for our Hillary.The latest awards of the past month are not yet posted .They have been listed on the State Dept official e-mail site.I wish that the the remains of the once outstanding msm would face up to the fact that she is the only political figure in the world who has earned her stripes and she was cheated from her victory as the POTUS in favor of a Chicago thug.racist,man without a country who is destroying our Democracy.How dare youObama and your misguided and misled supporters team up with political riders on the
life long gravy train? Read the article below my friends and get angry,for time is running out.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been given many awards and honors.

Awards are broken out by biographical era received in, although they often recognize efforts conducted in previous eras as well.

The Hillary Rodham Clinton series
v • d • e
Tenure as Secretary of State, 2009–
Campaign for the Presidency, 2007–2008
United States Senate career, 2001–2009
Political positions · Awards and honors
List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton

Contents [hide]
1 While First Lady of Arkansas
2 While First Lady of the United States
3 While United States Senator from New York
4 While United States Secretary of State
5 References

While First Lady of Arkansas
In 1983, Clinton was named Arkansas Woman of the Year by the Arkansas Democrat.[1][2]
In 1983, Clinton was named Headliner of the Year by the Arkansas Press Association.[3]
Around 1983 or 1984, Hillary and Bill Clinton were named Public Citizens of the Year by the Arkansas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.[2][3]
In 1984, Clinton was named Arkansas (Young) Mother of the Year by the Arkansas Association of American Mothers.[1][3]
In the mid-1980s, Clinton was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.[3]
In 1988 and 1991, Clinton was named by National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America[4]
While First Lady of the United States

An exhibit at the William J. Clinton Presidential Center also honors Hillary Rodham Clinton’s time as First Lady of the United States.In May 1993, Clinton received an honorary doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.[5] She also served as the university’s commencement speaker that year.[5]
Around 1994, Clinton received the Living Legacy Award from the Women’s International Center, in recognition of “her vast contributions in so many fields, especially honoring her work for women and children.”[6]
In 1994, a special variety of tulip was cultivated and named for her in The Netherlands; it was still being grown as of the late 2000s.[7]
In 1995, the New York University Annual Survey of American Law dedicated its 52nd volume to Clinton. Each spring since 1942 the NYU Annual Survey has dedicated a volume to a preeminent attorney. On hand to honor Clinton were Former Secretary of the Treasury and United States Senator Lloyd M. Bentsen, Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel, Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, United States Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, and United States Senator Edward M. Kennedy.[8]
In June 1995, Mount Saint Vincent University awarded Clinton an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters.
Clinton won the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for It Takes a Village during the Grammy Awards of 1997.[9]
In May 1998, Clinton received the United Arab Emirates Health Foundation Prize for her work in health and social welfare, especially as it related to women, children, and families.[10]
In April 1999, Clinton was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund for her support of that Ukrainian organization’s efforts regarding legacy effects of the Chernobyl accident.[11]
In June 1999, Clinton received the Mother Teresa Award, the highest honor given to civilians by Albania. This was in recognition of her humanitarian efforts following the Kosovo War and worldwide.[12]
While United States Senator from New York
On March 26, 2004, Clinton was presented with the inaugural Nursing Health and Humanity Award from the University of Rochester School of Nursing.[13]
On August 26, 2004, Clinton was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, (LLD) by the University of Ulster.[14]
On February 13, 2005, Clinton was awarded the German Media Prize 2004. “Hillary Clinton is a model politician for millions of women around the world” who “represents in an exemplary way women’s rights”, the jury for the prize said.[15]
On February 15, 2005, Clinton was given the American Medical Women’s Association’s President’s Vision & Voice Award, for being an advocate for women’s health and related issues.[16]
In May 2005, Clinton received an honorary doctorate from Agnes Scott College near Atlanta for being a “defender of human rights” and “a resolute defender of the rights of women and girls.”[17]
On July 30, 2005, Clinton was given the Reserve Officers Association’s National President’s Award.[18][19]
In September 2005, Clinton initially accepted but later rejected honorary membership into Alpha Kappa Alpha due to its exclusive requirements which would prevent her from accepting honorary membership in other National Pan-Hellenic Council organizations.[20]
On October 9, 2005, Clinton was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.[21]
In April 2006, Clinton was honored with the Remembrance Award from the Northeastern New York Chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association.[22]
On June 14, 2006, Clinton received an Energy Leadership Award from the United States Energy Association’s Energy Efficiency Forum, in recognition of her leadership on energy issues.[23]
During 2007, Clinton was awarded an honorary doctorate in medicine by the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, for being “a strong advocate for increased investment in medical research” and for “raising awareness of the increased health problems linked to obesity, poor quality food and physical inactivity.”[24]
Clinton has been ranked among the world’s most powerful people by Forbes magazine[25][26] and Time magazine’s Time 100.[27]
From 2002 through 2008, Clinton was named by Americans in a Gallup Poll as the woman around the world they most admired.[28]
While United States Secretary of State
Newsweek ranked her as the 13th most powerful person on the planet, and the most powerful American woman, in its “Global Elite” for 2009.[29]
In 2009, Clinton received the Global Trailblazer award from Vital Voices Global Partnership, for “her passionate commitment to promoting women’s rights and securing justice for all people around the world.”[30]
For the fifth time, Clinton was named by TIME magazine in 2009 as one of the most 100 influential people in the world.[31]
On May 13, 2009, Clinton received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from New York University and spoke at their 177th commencement at new Yankee Stadium.[32][33]
On May 18, 2009, Clinton received Barnard College’s highest award, the Barnard Medal of Distinction, as she spoke at their commencement.[34]
On May 25, 2009, Clinton received an honorary Doctor of Law degreee from Yale University, from whose law school she had graduated three dozen years earlier.[35]
Also on May 25, 2009, Clinton received an award from the National Coordinated Effort of Hellenes, for “for unprecedented steps taken in the right direction on Hellenic and Orthodox issues”.[36]
Forbes listed her as the 36th most powerful woman in the world in 2009.[37]
References
_______________________________________________________________________

From what I’ve read yesterday, anywhere from $40B to $170B is the share of money the US is designated to deliver to developing(Third World)countries. The revenue will be collected from citizens in the form of a (private) Carbon Tax. And we will be under the control of the EPA government. A determination will be made by the EPA of the amount of CO2 each person’s lifestyle emits. For instance, auto mileage. The distance traveled on vacations, to work, general travel. The mileage will be assessed for auto emissions. If you own a boat, motorcycle, animals (cows, cattle, horses etc) basically, anything you own that emits co2 will be fair game to be assessed a carbon tax. Countries that haven’t signed on yet will follow suit after we have been enslaved to this maniacal scam.

Well, I sold my goats last weekend, so now I will have to sell my donkeys. I refuse to sell my 20/27 year old horses, the only thing they would be good for is dog food at that age.

How about we get fire most of Congress and the Senate and lets not forget POTUS, they are all full hot air. I am sure they are emitting more than their share of CO2.

This is the craziest thing I have ever heard of. I guess the big companies that want to move our jobs to foreign countries want us to pay for the construction of their facilities in those countries, hence the carbon tax. Soonor or later they will be no one working in America, then where will they get all that money to give out to all these deserving countries.

Wbboei, I think Hillary is going to run in 2012, I think they are prepping her, hence all the interviews, magazine covers, hints of crushes on men. They are trying to make her seem younger to go against the young Palin. I think this is what they have up their sleeve, which is OK with me, the sooner we get rid of this loser the better we will be. I just wish he would take all his gangsters with him.

They have a good pic of POTUS over at wtpotus.wordpress. I have to say it is really fitting, especially the analogy.

Confloyd, I think the biggest emitters of CO2 are the POTUS, Congress, and the pundits. They certainly emit more than their share of CO2.

The way things are going with the health insurance debacle, cap and trade, and bailouts to Wall Street, the middle class is being screwed and our standard of living is going to fall even more than it already has.

The job creation summit should have been held 9 months ago and not treated as an after thought. The middle class is shrinkinng and the difference between the haves and have-nots is widening more everyday.

Just wanted to get this down in the comments before I go Christmas shopping. I have noticed that their trying to push thru this healthcare bill by Christmas. (Nancy’s gift to us poor folk) I think it all about confusing us right now so we won’t realize what they are doing in Copenhaugen. I can tell you now that I have joined the ranks of the uninsured its not much fun. A doctor’s visit is 87.50 where I live, there no health clinic to go to get a better price. I wouldn’t even mind at all seeing a PA or a nurse practicioner, but I would want a lower price for those folks. I don’t need a Dr. to write a script for a Z-pac for a sinus infection. If they really want to help, they will get clinics to treat these kinds of illnesses at a lower price.
I listened to two DR.s on Fox this morning, each had a good arguement either for or against the new bill, but my worry being a healthcare worker (part-time) is that both sides agree theres not enough Dr.s or nurses or healthcare professionals. SO what I’m afraid of is that they will get that HB-1 visa open up wide to allow Dr.s and nurses from all these third world countries to come over to take care of us and it will drop our wages dramatically. Then add what they are doing to us in Copenhaugen, we will be screwed royally. I don’t know about you Birdgal or Gonzotex, but I worked at this profession long enough for $8.00 an hour and I don’t want to go back to it.

Wbboei, I think Hillary is going to run in 2012, I think they are prepping her, hence all the interviews, magazine covers, hints of crushes on men.
——————————–
It is not unlikely. The question is by then will any democrat be electable in any office. It takes time for the realization of Obama treason to sink it, but when it does it will be katie bar the doors. And he will take alot of congressional democrats with him. Big media, with the exception of FOX has breached the public trust, and only an idiot believes what they say anymore. When the time comes, I hope she runs as an independent, but I have no expectation that she will. The party label will be in the dumpster by then. The net effect of his policies has been to freeze hiring in the private sector–even though the recession is supposedly over.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the Bowl Championship Series. It favors perenniel superpowers at the expense of small schools.

And the BCS is truly a violation of anti-trust laws, etc.

But i thought it was odd to see this as a topic getting much play. Perhaps it is the timing, just before New Year’s multiple games…

Then again, it is probably a topic that Obama cares about more than health care (he already has a good plan), Afghanistan (he’s not fighting), and world peace (he already collected his Nobel prize).

nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20091209_8600.php

House Subpanel Votes To Ban BCS System
======================================

The House Energy and Commerce Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee today approved legislation that would sideline use of the Bowl Championship Series to select college football’s national champion.

The bill would block colleges from using the controversial system to determine which teams are eligible to play in the national championship game, which this year pits Texas against Alabama. The subcommittee approved the bill on a voice vote, with at least one member opposing, and referred it to the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill prohibits as an “unfair and deceptive act” under the Interstate Commerce Act the marketing of any post-season NCAA Division 1 football contest as a “national championship” game unless it is the outcome of a “fair and equitable playoff system” open to all Division 1 colleges.

The panel earlier approved on a voice vote a manager’s amendment offered by Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush, D-Ill., and Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe Barton, who also co-sponsored the bill. The co-sponsors said the amendments added language to clarify the bill’s intent.

Rush said the measure would allow all the major college football teams to compete for the championship, ensuring “an equitable division” of the revenue from the bowl games. The top five contests netted at least $1.2 billion last year. Rush said the bill would also ensure that “the true football champion would be decided on the playing field.”

Barton, who has pushed this issue for years, called the BCS “an economic cartel” that unfairly enriches a few chosen colleges at the expense of schools not in the exclusive conferences.

He noted that in addition to Texas and Alabama, three other colleges also had no chance to compete in the BCS championship game despite having undefeated seasons. If the BCS were a business, he said, it would be in violation of antitrust laws.

No one on the panel defended the BCS system, though fewer than half of the 32 subcommittee members attended. Reps. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and John Barrow, D-Ga., said they did not think Congress should be wasting its time on the issue of college football rankings instead of addressing high unemployment and other issues.

BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock echoed these sentiments. “Surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played,” he said in a statement, adding that officials from 120 major universities believe “the current system is the best.”

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, however, agreed that the antitrust issue should be examined. Rush said he did not think the bill could get a full committee hearing before the year-end recess, but Barton said he hoped it would. “I’ll have to work on Waxman,” he said, referring to Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman.

Obama has screwed the pooch. The central issue should have been jobs. Instead it was all these other issues. And the effect of those other issues is to freeze hiring and destroy small business. What planet does this moron come from? It’s not the economy this time around. The recession is over according to him—and we still have 17.2% unemployment. The future prospects under him are grim as hell. Republicans understand what Democrats do not: its the jobs stupid.

(Note: this is not a brief on behalf of the Republican Party. They have done their share of damage, but nothing like him). From the standpoint of the American People, it is Hobsons choice. But the Republicans are not the ones destroying our country now, they do not believe in world government and looting taxpayers).

Holding The Line With White Voters
Obama’s weak spot is non-college whites, but he has lost ground among other groups as well.
by Ronald Brownstein

Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009

As 2010 approaches, President Obama is displaying a familiar strength, a familiar weakness, and a new vulnerability that could tip next year’s midterm election.

The familiar strength is his standing among racial minorities. In the 2008 race, Obama won four-fifths of nonwhite voters. Nearly three-fourths of nonwhites still approve of his performance, the latest Gallup weekly polling average shows. That will boost Democrats next year in the growing number of House districts with large minority populations. And those very diverse districts could help Democrats limit any midterm losses. But, overall, minority voters will likely cast a smaller share of votes in 2010 than in 2008 (or 2012). For congressional Democrats, that prospect raises the stakes on reconnecting with white voters now radiating discontent.

This takes us to Obama’s familiar weakness: his difficulties among white voters without college educations. He’s not the first Democrat with that problem. Although such working-class whites anchored Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition, no Democratic presidential nominee since 1988 has carried more than 44 percent of them, according to exit polls; Obama captured a meager 40 percent.

Just 38 percent of noncollege whites approved of Obama’s performance in the latest weekly Gallup average. Partly, his problem is stylistic, says pollster Geoff Garin, the top strategist during the 2008 Democratic primaries for Hillary Rodham Clinton (who crushed Obama among working-class whites). “Obama has a particular problem with them, not because of his race but because he has a very intellectual long-term approach to things and is not the kind of politician who tries to connect with the immediacy of people’s problems,” Garin said. Although Garin believes that judgment is unfair, he adds that Obama’s style causes many working-class whites to view him as “somebody who is disconnected from the urgency of their problems.”

The president’s difficulties extend beyond manner. Polls show most working-class whites doubt that his flotilla of federal initiatives will help them. In a recent survey by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, only one-third of noncollege whites said that their families would be better off if health care reform passes. In a Garin poll for the Economic Policy Institute, just one-fifth of working-class whites said that Washington’s response to the recession had benefited them. Many more identified Wall Street and large banks as the big winners. Their view, Garin says, is that Washington is reserving its “urgency” for “people at the top.”

These attitudes threaten Democrats in 2010. Nationwide, about 30 percent of whites over 25 hold college degrees, according to new census figures. The share of whites with college degrees runs below that national average in 241 House districts; Democrats now hold 128 of them and Republicans 113. Those Democratic seats, particularly in interior states, present big opportunities for Republicans: Those districts include 25 of the 39 that my colleagues at The Cook Political Report rate as most vulnerable to a GOP takeover.

In 194 districts, the share of whites with college degrees exceeds the national average. Democrats hold 130; Republicans only 64. That 66-seat advantage contributes much more to the Democratic majority than the party’s 15-seat edge in the blue-collar seats. The Cook Report rates only 14 of the well-educated Democratic districts as vulnerable. Yet more could waver, because Obama is showing new vulnerability among college whites. In Garin’s poll, white college grads were as unlikely as blue-collar whites to say that Washington’s economic policies had benefited them. And in Kaiser’s survey, the sheepskin set was less likely to say that health care reform would help them. Obama’s approval rating among college-educated whites dipped in Gallup this week to 44 percent, below his 2008 vote of 47 percent.

Like all downturns, this recession has hit hardest at the most economically vulnerable, particularly racial minorities. But this storm has been unusually egalitarian, battering those at the top too. Since 2007, median incomes have plunged more for white families headed by men with a college degree than those headed by men with only high school educations, the Economic Policy Institute reports.

That widening distress changes the political equation. A possible Republican surge next year in blue-collar “beer track” districts remains the biggest threat to the Democrats’ House majority. The Democrats’ vulnerability will deepen, however, if they cannot hold the line in “wine track” districts whose education levels exceed the national average. That’s one way a difficult 2010 election for Democrats could turn catastrophic.

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Latin American countries Friday to “think twice” about fostering ties with Iran because of its alleged support for terrorism.

“I think if people want to flirt with Iran, they should take a look at what the consequences might well be for them. And we hope that they will think twice and we will support them if they do,” the chief US diplomat said.

During a question-and-answer session at the State Department’s public policy forum on Latin America, Clinton said it was a “very bad idea for the countries involved” to allow Iran to establish itself in the region.

In a sign of Iran’s push for closer ties with the mostly leftist governments thriving at the doorstep of the United States, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil last month.

“We hope that there will be a recognition that this is the major supporter, promoter and exporter of terrorism in the world today,” Clinton said.

In May, she defended moves by President Barack Obama’s administration to engage anti-US leaders in Latin America as a way to check what she called “disturbing” Iranian and Chinese inroads in the region. Clinton said Obama had to take a new tack after his predecessor George W. Bush’s efforts to isolate such leaders had only made them “more negative” toward Washington and more receptive to rival powers.

In “a multipolar world where we are competing for attention and relationships with at least the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians,” such countries can fill the void left by the lack of US engagement, she warned.

Mrs Smith, you read this WHERE? A determination will be made by the EPA of the amount of CO2 each person’s lifestyle emits. For instance, auto mileage. The distance traveled on vacations, to work, general travel. The mileage will be assessed for auto emissions. If you own a boat, motorcycle, animals (cows, cattle, horses etc) basically, anything you own that emits co2 will be fair game to be assessed a carbon tax.

WHEN all the world was falling apart late last year, the White House, Congress and Treasury officials had no problem selling taxpayers on their moral duty to reach into their pockets and find trillions of dollars to save the economy.

It was a very different story when President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled proposals yesterday to expand the $US787 billion stimulus package and the $US700 billion TARP fund that were launched last year.

A year ago, unemployment was barely 6 per cent and several economic indicators showed that most of the country was still experiencing growth. Only the decimation on Wall Street had Uncle Sam madly rushing to push into law any stimulus package it could — and the public quietly in obeyance.

Today the economic picture across the country is not only drastically different, but a lot worse. Unemployment is at 10 per cent nationally, and as high as 15 per cent in economically downtrodden states such as Michigan. Hawaii had to cut its school days back from five to four and some states are letting prisoners out of jail because they can’t afford to pay the bills.

California is facing the greatest financial crisis in its history and New York’s governor has had to beg the state legislature over and over again to help fill a budget gap.

On the other hand, many firms on Wall Street are expected to pay out bonuses to employees at the record-breaking levels of 2007.

So why is it such an uphill battle right now for the Obama administration to convince Main Street America that the best thing the government can do is spend its way out of economic mire?

It’s the people who live on Main Street, not those who work on Wall Street, who continue to lose their jobs by the thousands. And it’s Main Street, not Wall Street, that battles with the worsening schools, tanking property values and fewer police because of a decline in tax revenues. Yet, screeds are written by press commentators against a free-spending government that is burdening the country with an untenable debt. The administration and Democratic members of Congress also have been overly careful not to bandy around words like “stimulus” or “taxpayer-funded bailouts”.

In a speech at the Brookings Institution yesterday, President Obama went to great lengths not to talk up his latest “job creation proposal” too much. Not once did the word “stimulus” come out of his mouth, even though White House officials were quietly acknowledging that it’s exactly what his plan to ramp up spending on infrastructure projects and extend tax cuts to small businesses amounted to.

And TARP funding will last until next October under an extension revealed ever-so-quietly by Mr Geithner.

The White House and Treasury officials played up the small business and housing angles of the TARP package and played down the continued assistance being doled out to the financial industry.

But the administration still needs to stimulate the very important economy that exists beyond Wall Street.

In the meantime, the American people might just want to ask themselves why the money that was good enough to help Wall Street out of a black hole isn’t good enough for them?

Hillary is in such demand to receive honors,give speeches and keep e
veryone informed as to world conditions and human rights problems.This past week while meeting with the PM of Honduras,he told the world that it was an honor to be in the same room in her presence.BO was never mentioned.She must run again.This troubled world needs her.Todays schedule below.

9:20 a.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Remarks at the First Diplomacy Briefing Series Meeting, Focused on the Issues and Challenges of U.S. Relations with Latin America, at the Department of State.
(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
Pre-set time for cameras: 8:15 a.m. from 21st Street Entrance.
Final access time for writers and still photographers: 9:00 a.m. from 21st Street Entrance.
For more information, click here.

11:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, at the Department of State.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

8:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers the Keynote Address to the American Pakistan Foundation’s Inaugural Gala Benefit, in New York City.
(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE FOR PRINT – POOLED COVERAGE FOR CAMERAS)
Final access time for writers and still photographers: 7:15 p.m. at the 41st Street Entrance to Cipriani.
Note: Please note that space is limited. All press will be escorted out following the Secretary’s remarks. Accredited media interested in covering this event can contact Edison.Lee@ogilvypr.com for more information.

turndownobama @ 1:44, whether of not the EPA would do anything like that, the fact remains that they would have the power to do so.

You can say all day that its tinfoil, and that they never would do those things – and maybe they wouldn’t. But then, the same argument could be made re: Bush’s wiretapping programs. “Yeah, they technically COULD use it to oppress the average citizen, but they wouldn’t.” How many times do we have to see a power grab under the guise of “it’s for a good cause, and we pinky promise to never ever ever misuse it” before we wake the HECK up???

Me, I don’t like handing the govt that much power, period. We are not talking about a chemical pollutant emitted by industry, etc. We are talking about a substance that everyone on the planet emits. And it’s okay with you to have the govt decide they have absolute power over that? Have at it, but it alarms the bejeebies out of me.

Obama’s EPA won’t really enforce anything against his polluting donors. This is just a CHicago style shakedown. Buy tickets to the Policeman’s Ball or else they MIGHT start enforcing the law. Support Cap/Trade or you’ll get the Cap without the Trade. It’s an offer they can’t refuse. Obama isn’t REALLY going to clean anything up.

ANyway, I don’t think any of our goats emit more than 250 tons of CO2 much less 25,000 tons. 😉

From Krauthammer:No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.)

Krauthammer admits that the law that MIGHT be enforced has been on the books for a long time, and Congress would have to amend it.

wbboei,
It is not unlikely. The question is by then will any democrat be electable in any office. It takes time for the realization of Obama treason to sink it, but when it does it will be katie bar the doors. And he will take alot of congressional democrats with him. Big media, with the exception of FOX has breached the public trust, and only an idiot believes what they say anymore. When the time comes, I hope she runs as an independent, but I have no expectation that she will. The party label will be in the dumpster by then. The net effect of his policies has been to freeze hiring in the private sector–even though the recession is supposedly over.
—————————————————————————————–

I think this is what is in store for us, the private sector, no hiring, freeze or lower wages. My personal opinion is that when Congress (rethug or dim) gets thru with healthcare, the healthcare workers will be the new auto workers (out of work and lower wages) as thousands of foreigners take our jobs as they did to the auto industry years ago.

JanH, I am not opposed to laws that give the govt power to do things that we want done. Not at all. But I am a firm believer that one should always distrust.

I think of laws/regulations like a contract between the People and the State. And I don’t, as a private individual, sign vague, open-ended contracts that can be altered by the other party anytime they feel like it. So why should I be that stupid as a citizen? I want laws/regulations that are simple, clear, with STRICT delineation and limits of exactly what we are asking the govt to do, and exactly how they are to do it, and what they cannot do as well. No weasel language that lets them “re-assess” at a later date.

I don’t care whether it’s healthcare, or welfare, or defense, or roads, or whatever. I don’t care how worthy the intent is, or how much I might agree with that intent. If it’s a crap law or a crap regulation that could be used badly in the future, I WILL oppose it. And people can whine at me all day long that “I don’t care about the poor/the environment/jobs/whatever.” Bullshit. I DO care about those things, but I won’t accept crappy power-grabbing legislation as the solution, because I don’t trust these fuckers in EITHER party any farther than I can throw them. Give me precise, targeted, simple, clear legislation with limits, or you can TALK TO THE HAND. I am so DONE being scammed by these filthy pols.

wbboei, I disagree with you about the rethugs not wanting world govt. They invented the idea, they are merely using the dims to get it done while they remain clean of the idea. I don’t trust them anymore than I trust the idiot dims who bought into the idea. It has always been the republicans who have wanted free and unfettered capitalism which is the hallmark of the one world government. Remember it was George Herbert Walker Bush who said we are one the road to a new world order. Kissinger (rethug) was and has always been a “one worlder”. He and Nixon plotted from the beginning.

Lets just say for the sake of it, that it is a dream of the ultra rich to have a one world govt. where they can run their factories for pennies a day without the hindrance of war, bandits, and the unsavory messing things up and costing them more money.

H4T, Here, here, very well said. I AGREE!! I don’t trust either freaking party. However, I do think the Clinton’s (both) have always had the American people best interest in their hearts and in they way they govern.

confloyd, I think one must differentiate on that issue between the GOP/neocons and real paleo-conservatives. I disagree with the paleos/libertarians like Ron Paul, etc, on a LOT, but they are on our country’s side as far as the NWO goes. The GOP is right there in the thick of it, though – they’d sell this country to the highest bidder in a heartbeat, just as the Dims would.

The GOP wants THEIR cabal to rule the world, and the Dims want THEIR cabal to rule the world The only thing they fight over is WHICH set of elites gets to be top dog, and how many times a day they get invited into the tent to blow the banksters (who have no party but money.) Dims and the GOP are just vying for the Favored Concubine spot, and the Red Lantern changes doorways every 4 to 8 years.

Bill Clinton was an 8 year upset to their plans. He was not supposed to win. It was a fluke – he slipped through the net of their careful planning, because the People loved him and would not be dissuaded. And they’ve never forgiven him for it.

And BTW, I don’t think that every Dim or GOP politician hates America, or is in on some structured vast conspiracy, having secret meetings with special handshakes and such. That’s tinfoil silly. They are just human, and flat greedy, and don’t want to see what they have wrought, and on whose behalf.

I think the USA entered into a devil’s bargain years ago by getting enmeshed in global finance with the shadow players. And they thought that because they were the Big Badass US of A, they had that tiger by the tail, and not the other way around. Now that it is becoming evident that it’s in truth the opposite, they are too far down the rabbit hole to put on the brakes, because it would implicate too many people over too many decades. They are not all actively conspiring, they are just all covering their asses and muddling along desperately grasping at their former power – trying to shut out the dawning realization that the tables have turned and our country has been had.

H4T, I agree not all in both parties are bad, just the majority is. I hear that Palin numbers are up and Obama and Palin are in a dead heat in popularity. I know what the GOP is going to do, they will run Newt and Palin together. Newt is now a Catholic and is a reformed sinner. We know the world loves those. Sarah is fresh and new.

The Dims are done for, their only hope, however ironic it may be is for Hillary to finally get the nomination that was stolen from her. They better say so long to the “One” or they won’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to win.

I have noticed now he wants to be called a war POTUS and not a Peace Potus. What a crock of Shit

PUMA-SF, Your right Tiger has a lot more talent than OBama. I remember when TIger won his first big game. THe commentators said if we could get a black man like him to run for POTUS people would vote for him. Now look at what has happened.
Obama has ruined many chances of good black men and women to become Potus for a long, long time.

confloyd, you are right about ruining. I cried mixed tears on inauguration day, because I was happy that the AA community was getting a great and long-hoped-for victory on the one hand, yet on the other hand I grieved because they would simultaneously be stabbed in the gut for decades.

wbboei, I disagree with you about the rethugs not wanting world govt.
———————
Connie–I could be wrong about alot of things, but I do know that the Republican Party is the party of small government. Yes, the neocons snuck in and created what may prove to be an irreconcilable problem within the party. But the party as a whole still believes in small government and markets. I do not think they want world government because it will undermine their power and the constitution which they believe in. There are a number of democrats who believe in those same principles. Unfortunately, few of them are in Congress. I got a form letter from my friend Jim Webb this morning talking about 2110. I admire him but if he votes for cap and trade I will no longer support him. As a writer, journalist, historian, war hero and bi partisan, he know that this is one of those paths which lead only to despair and from which no one ever returns. Also, he knows what communism looks like. The mother ship is gone, but the pollen spores have spread into every nook and crany of society. But in the backgorund is big business.

I don’t know if someone else has posted this, but I thought it was worth posting.

By JIM KUHNHENN (AP)

WASHINGTON — Call it the $6 billion boycott.

By boycotting a key House committee vote last week and threatening to abandon support for banking regulations, members of the Congressional Black Caucus got $4 billion added to a Wall Street regulation bill and $2 billion to a proposed House jobs bill in spending they sought for African American communities.

“For those of us who walked out, it was absolutely essential that we have parts of that legislation directed toward helping people who have been left out of all of these bailouts,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., one of 10 black caucus members in the Financial Services Committee, said.

The proposed jobs bill targets $1 billion from infrastructure spending for public housing repairs. It also provides $1 billion for an affordable housing trust fund.

With 40 members in the House, the Congressional Black Caucus can be a potent force.

“Since last September, we have continuously voted for bailout and reform for the very institutions that created this devastation, without properly protecting the African-American community or small business,” Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said on the day of the boycott. “That stops today.”

Among the caucus’ demands were greater assistance for minority-owned auto dealerships and banks that lend in African-American communities and more government advertising in minority-owned media.

Gee, I wish there was someway quickly to do this for the umemployed regular worker, not just for some of them. I see no one stood up for the average man or woman without a job, just the black ones. THis is reverse racism. They should have walked out for ALL umemployed people in America.

Wbboei, I certainly hope and pray the democrats come to their senses by 2012 because I hate voting rethug. I do like Palin, but would never vote for her if she is on the same ticket with the likes of Newt. I will NEVER forget what Newt did and said to Bill Clinton. The only reason I could vote for Palin this time was that she was on with John McCain (Hillary’s friend), and thats the only reason. I hope the democrats remember us lunch bucket dems and the AA’s remember that Obama did nothing for them.

I would like to say that I am a democrat and I don’t vote for rethugs as Hillary Clinton said in her speech at the convention,but am NOT going to vote for a Obama/Clinton ticket. If he is anywhere on the ticket or one of his henchman, forget it, I won’t vote dim again.

HillaryforTexas said:
I don’t care whether it’s healthcare, or welfare, or defense, or roads, or whatever. I don’t care how worthy the intent is, or how much I might agree with that intent. If it’s a crap law or a crap regulation that could be used badly in the future, I WILL oppose it.

=================

When the bad guys see they can get away with something, they’ll do it, no law required. So when a new law would do some immediate good, I’ll go for the immediate good.

HIllaryforTexas,
The US EPA isn’t being given any new ‘legal power’ — they’re just looking at enforcing a law that has been on the books a long time. What they’re being (phonily imo) offered is just political cover (to scare the polluters into supporting Cap and Trade imo).

With the power Obama’s backers have now in Congress and the SC, the EPA don’t NEED no stinkin law. Obama would find some other excuse for them to threaten with.

Looking at it the other way: a law can stay on the books forever if no bad guys have the actual power to use it. If they do have the power, they don’t need any law.

I didn’t mean to suggest that any of the current laws that Obama is pushing will have any immediate good effect or any good effect any time. If he’s for it, it’s probably bad.

(Wow, that’s incriminating, isn’t it? Any bot get 13 years worth of our posts and cherry pick for quotes, like with CRU’s emails, and the bots can prove we’re all crooks and Obama is innocent. Look, those lying PUMAs don’t even agree with each other about everything. 😉

jbstonesfan, No I did not see that Muslim leader of Turkey. Got a link??

I heard that Israel is feeling more comfortable with Russia now than America, is this true?? I haven’t heard much about Israel here lately, I guess the gangsta’s are too busy trying to get Copenhaugen to come thru for them to worry about little Israel right now.

When the bad guys see they can get away with something, they’ll do it, no law required. So when a new law would do some immediate good, I’ll go for the immediate good.

By that reasoning Bush’s wiretapping was fine, because it accomplished the “immediate good” of keeping us safe from terrorists, so who cares if it had potential to be abused. Sorry, we have to disagree on this one.

Oh, and political opinion is allowed to be contradictory and all over the map. But data that is being purported to be rock solid, and the basis for the complete overhaul of nations and redistribution of wealth, is NOT allowed to be contradictory and all over the map. There’s a wee bit higher standard for science than for political opinion. At least, there used to be.

The EPA IS being given new power. The laws may have been on the books, but were not applicable to carbon emissions until now. Unless one is foolish enough to believe that they fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and went to the trouble of getting that endangerment finding just for laughs.

Follow the money, confloyd. There is more big money behind cap and trade than the oil companies ever dreamed of. What, you think the Big Boyz were going to keep all their bets on Big Oil, now that Big Oil has become so unpopular a villain? Nah, they just switch horses, and laugh their asses off at the sincere true believers still doing battle with YESTERDAY’S toothless enemy. You think the mortgage derivative market was a scam, just wait until the carbon trade market gets rolling. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Obama’s Big Sellout
The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway
Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it’s not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

wbboei, Glenn Beck was simply marvelous today. He answered everything we have been talking about today on this blog.
The dims have put forth millions of dollars in pork barrel spending, but the rethugs have put forth billions, yes that is with a B.
Glenn also said that not only are they going to control the air, but that the clean water act will control the water. What did I tell you about GWB buying a ranch Paraquay on the largest aquifier in the world. Do you realize what they are trying to do, it wasn’t enough money just to control the oil and bleed Americans at almost 5.00 a gal, now they will put a price on the air we breath, the water we drink, while they sit in their mansions.

Wbboei, Also Glenn said that Soros is now putting his money in T-bills and not the markets and he is doing it slowly so no one will notice. Glenn said this is when we really need to watch because the bottom will fall out after Christmas. They needed all this time to move their money to safer places so they get to keep theirs.
Aren’t they sweet, their letting us have one more Christmas, as long as like Soros said “Americans need to tighten their belts”. I wonder he will tighten his??

Whether Bush’s wiretapping had a ‘good’ result depends on who is the judge of ‘good’. Imo on balance it had a bad result, immediately.

Our PUMA data of caucus irregularities etc was messy, disorganized, and all over the place. Some may have been incorrect. There may have been a few people deliberately giving false reports for personal reasons. A few bloggers may have slanted some of their presentations. — But OVERALL, the tendency of all the evidence and consensus of all the sincere PUMA bloggers is that Obama DID cheat.

Global warming research over 13+ years and worldwide sources and fallible human researchers is also messy and imperfect — but the overall conclusion is just as sure as that Obama cheated in the primaries.

As to the smart bad guys moving their money away from oil (and their support away from McCain), I tend to agree!

Obama is using the health care problem as cover for enriching his insurance and pharma donors, and the global warming problem as cover for enriching his speculators and polluter donors. But both health care and global warming are REAL problems.

Btw, some people say they accept global warming but not MAN-MADE global warming. However pls note that most of the attacks on CRU are denying that any warming at all (or any recent acceleration) is happening.

Frankly, I believe that global warming is occurring (just look at the ice caps)and is a combination of a natural process and man-made factors. Things usually are a result of a combination of factors. Can we really slow down or speed up a natural process?

Actually, most of the attacks I’ve seen say yes, there was acceleration in the 90’s, but it’s now cooling off. And that 90’s acceleration was not an “OMFG THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE” event, but something that has happened before in the past: i.e. the Medieval warm period.

“Hide the decline” was absolutely a statement of intent. They were likely very sincere and honest when all this began, and they were looking at that warming trend. But they fully expected the temperature trends to continue climbing past the 2000’s as they had in the 90’s. They had banked their entire careers and selves on that premise. So when SOME of the data unexpectedly started showing either leveling off or even reversing, they decided to “tweak” it to fit what they were convinced MUST be happening. The real data CHANGED, and rather than taking a step back, and revising their hypothesis as a true scientist would, they chose to keep their theory come hell or high water, because too much was riding on it. So they changed the data, not their theory.

13 years of studies doesn’t mean Jack if a) the data is flawed, and b) the most RECENT data doesn’t add up, or at the very least introduces doubt as to whether the trend of the 90’s is continuing.

There may not have been doubt in 1998. But there is now, and it does no good to ignore that. Just looking at their behavior and tone alone, they are not coming across as scientists, but rather as priests who are made deeply uncomfortable that the One True Religion is being questioned.

I’ve lived a long time, and am a keen student of human behavior. I know bullshit when I smell it, and this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I agree that some recent warming has been natural as well as much of it being man-made. There are natural up and down cycles. But the recent downs have not been as low as previous downs, and the recent ups have been higher than previous ups.

Weather/climate is a messy chaotic process. No single measure can give the whole picture. We have to look at a variety of measures over time to see an overall trend.

(Obama may have legitimately won a few precincts here and there — but on the whole it’s clear he cheated.)

Hillary Clinton will give a human rights speech at Georgetown University on Monday, the State Department announced. The topic will be human rights in the 21st century.

Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, just back from Iraq, testify before the Senate Appropriations Foreign Ops Subcommittee Tuesday. Gates met with Iraq’s Al Maliki in Baghdad at 745am this morning before going to Erbil for meetings with Kurdish leaders.

Obama’s course is set and his presidency is already stained the familiar blood-red.

Obama’s Nobel speech in Oslo. It’s a mind bender-

Accepting peace prize, Obama makes case for unending war

1 December 2009

In the most bellicose Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech within living memory, President Barack Obama made an argument Thursday in Oslo for ever-widening war and neo-colonial occupation, putting the world on notice that the American ruling elite intends to push ahead with its drive for global domination.

Obama defended his dispatch of tens of thousands more US troops to Afghanistan, and ominously referred to Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Darfur in Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and Burma, any or all of which may become targets for future American military intervention.

There was a darkly farcical element to the award ceremony, as Obama acknowledged that he is the “Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.” He presented war as a legitimate means of pursuing national interests.

In Orwellian fashion, he declared that “the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace,” that “all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace,” and that imperialist troops should be honored “not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.”

Awarded a prize supposedly intended to promote world peace, Obama made the case for past, present and future military action. The US president communicated the “hard truth” to his audience that “we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.” He promised that nations would continue to “find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified,” and emphasized that squeamish populations would have to get over their “deep ambivalence about military action” and “reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.”

He admitted that masses of people around the globe were hostile to imperialist war, noting regretfully that “in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public.” But the popular will and democracy be damned: “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.”

Obama arrogantly spelled out Washington’s belief that it can intervene in defense of US interests when and where it likes, no matter what the human cost.

This was wrapped, rather miserably, in the language of moral uplift, the “law of love” and, inevitably, the “spark of the divine.” He indicated, although the speech and his mode of presentation offered no sign of it, that he felt an “acute sense of the cost of armed conflict.” On the contrary, Obama delivered his remarks about war and peace with all the depth of feeling of a university administrator issuing a set of campus parking regulations.

Obama was even blunter when answering questions from Norwegian journalists prior to the ceremony. Speaking of his administration’s first 11 months, he explained, “The goal is not to win a popularity contest or to get an award, even one as prestigious as the Nobel peace prize. The goal has been to advance America’s interests.”

Obama offered his audience—which included Norwegian royalty and politicians, along with Hollywood celebrities—a potted, misanthropic history of human civilization (“War … appeared with the first man … Evil does exist in the world”), before launching into a spirited and lying defense of America’s global role.

The president presented the post-war period as one of peace and prosperity bestowed by a benevolent US. “America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace … The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. … We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will.” The levels of hypocrisy and falsification are staggering.

Obama later made the extraordinary claim that “America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.” Aside from the historical fact that the US has fought wars with Britain, Germany and Austria-Hungary, when all of them had parliamentary systems, Obama deliberately sidestepped the long, sordid history of US interventions against peoples of the oppressed countries, from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean region in the first part of the 20th century, to Vietnam, Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, Chile, and Nicaragua in the postwar period.

As for Washington’s “closest friends,” that list presently includes brutal and corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Uzbekistan (along with the puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan), among others, all of which practice torture and widespread repression.

After referring to the concept of “just war,” associated with a nation acting to defend itself, and claiming, falsely, that the US invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was based on that principle, Obama made it clear that Washington needs no such legitimation.

He spoke in favor of military action whose purpose “extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor.” “Humanitarian grounds,” determined of course by Washington, were sufficient to justify “force,” which could be employed against much of Africa, Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe. This is nothing more than colonialism cloaked in the mantle of “just war.”

Obama defended a version of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, with a more multilateral coloration as part of the effort to reinforce the European powers’ support for the US-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. “America cannot act alone,” said the US president.

The European ruling elites, whose interests find expression in the decisions of the Nobel committee, were glad to oblige Obama with a stage from which he could defend these wars and paint imperialist aggression as an act of humanitarianism. They hope that Obama, unlike Bush and Cheney, will offer Europe a role in enforcing “global security” (and sharing in the spoils) in “unstable regions for years to come.”

Obama made reference to the Nobel prize speech delivered 45 years ago by Martin Luther King Jr., in order to repudiate its oppositional content. King, unlike Obama, delivered a short address, calling attention to the ongoing repression of blacks and opponents of racism in the South. King insisted that “Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.”

Before his assassination, King became an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. It is his identification of militarism with oppression and barbarism that Obama and the entire American political establishment instinctively find threatening and seek to discredit.

The Nobel speech is a further stage in the political unmasking of Obama. The candidate of “change” is revealing himself not only as the continuator, in every important aspect, of the Bush-Cheney policies, but as a deeply reactionary, foul figure in his own right. He is not feigning his obvious relish for the military and war; this is who and what he has become over the course of his political career.

Jabir Aftab, a 27-year-old engineer in Peshawar, Pakistan, told the Agence France-Presse Thursday, “The Nobel prize is for those who have made achievements, but Obama is a killer.” That understanding will come to permeate the thinking of vast numbers of people in the coming period.

Admin, I am glad you posted these. I realize he did not come out and say that Soros is buying T-bills, but how could he, that would tank the market. So he did the next best thing, he used his friend that is in the business just as SOros is that says he has already moved to T-bills.

Here’s an article from CanadaFreePress about what is really being applauded by Soros and Maurice Strong in Copenhaugen. I wouldn’t have believed it had I not read this article, but unfortunately it fits with everything else Soros wants to be done HIS planet.

By Judi McLeod Friday, December 11, 2009
Is Diane Francis over at the Financial Post swilling Kool Aide or has she just been taking lessons from China Booster and UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong?

“The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world,” Francis wrote in a Dec. 8 Financial Post column.

Humankind overpopulating the world? How terribly inconvenient!

Francis, who usually keeps tabs on the financial world, has come up with the answer for saving the world: Don’t have children.

“A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

“The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.”

Throw in the polar bears and Al Gore couldn’t have said it better himself.

So all on her own, Francis like Pogo has discovered the enemy: It is us.

China cheerleaders Maurice Strong and George Soros make way for a loud new member of the inner fold.

“Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict. (Link to pictures of Pollution in China)

Newborn babies in this kind of thinking become “environmental degradation”?

The China delegates in Copenhagen yesterday pushing population control as key to the cap and trade deal couldn’t have been more pleased with the cheers from the Land of the Maple Leaf, which has already gifted the world with Maurice Strong and Greenpeace.

On the very day they made their presentation, Francis’ column advocating “The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy” was already posted on the Drudge Report.

Like so many environmentalists who want to save the environment by denying electricity and modern comforts to third world populations, Francis worries that “humankind has not yet recalibrated its behaviour to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so may people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars”.

She argues that since China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy, its middle class grows, “all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet”.

The Canadian scribe could have added that China’s citizens get thrown in jail for posting to the internet and are “disappeared” if caught attending Christian church service.

In the democratic Peoples Republic of China, the the killing off of of its citizens is an even deadlier means of depopulation than the one-child policy.

Life is not worry free for Diane Francis, who worries about those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes. “Just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.”

I never heard anything about either incident on television. This is definitly not being reported by BM.

By Doug Hagmann Friday, December 11, 2009
(Editor’s Note: Doug Hagmann’s popular site, the Northeast Intelligence Network is currently under transition to another server and will be back online later today.)

It happened again on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, less than a month after the incident aboard AirTran Flight 297.

United Airlines Flight 227, scheduled to depart Denver International Airport at 1:50 pm Wednesday for Los Angeles was disrupted when several passengers who were described as Middle Eastern in appearance, confirmed by this investigator to be a group of Muslims traveling together, were removed from that aircraft due to suspicious behavior that originated in the terminal and continued to the airplane. Their behavior was consistent in some respects to the behavior of the Muslim passengers aboard AirTran Flight 297 on November 17, 2009 that caused a flurry of controversy over its legitimacy, and the now infamous case of the “Flying Imams” of 2006.

According to information obtained by this investigator, seven men of Middle Eastern appearance, boarded flight 227. Two took their seats in coach, while five took their seats in the first class section of the plane. At a critical pre-flight point, the individuals appeared to act in concert with one another, changing seats and moving stowed luggage to very specific areas of the aircraft, often having to move the stowed bags of other passengers to do so. They disobeyed or otherwise ignored the admonitions of the flight attendants to remain seated.
Their behavior was so overt and so apparently choreographed, according to our sources, that the flight crew demanded the passengers be removed from the aircraft. One report found on 9News in Denver quoted John Sloan, a passenger aboard that flight:
“I have never seen flight attendants so scared in my life. Everything turned out OK, but it was not a very good feeling..”

Following the removal of the passengers, officials brought a bomb-sniffing dogs aboard the aircraft, focusing of the first class section of the plane. Subsequent to the search that found nothing, the offending passengers were removed from the flight and rebooked on another aircraft to their destination. According to federal officials, no criminal investigation is being launched into this incident, which was described as a “customer service” matter.
Early this morning, this investigator spoke to a law enforcement source in Denver who is intimately familiar with the incident. Many details have not been publicly reported about this incident, although it is clear that there is an agenda at play. Based on information obtained from this source and others relating to the previous flights disrupted by the deliberate behavior of Muslim passengers, it is clear that the airline industry, as well as the sensibilities of normal Americans, is under attack through Islamic ideological jihad. Additional information will be provided once our investigation is complete.

By Judi McLeod Friday, December 11, 2009
Is Diane Francis over at the Financial Post
———————————————
The Financial Times has become corrupt. I have noticed this myself in an article either yesterday or the day before. It was the kind of thing a Soros zombie could have written. It had to do with climate gate.

I’m sad to see Palin taking a shallow view and doing cheap shots at CRU quotes out of context. She’s had that done to her so much, she should be aware of when others are doing it. I hope she’ll look deeper into the CRU case when she has time.

The following doesn’t add much substance, I’m just glad to see a journalist using ‘rebutted’ when they mean ‘rebutted’, instead of ‘refuted’.

Former Vice President Al Gore, the most recognized U.S. voice on climate change, quickly rebutted Palin and accused the climate deniers in an interview with CNN of “taking things out of context and misrepresenting” what the e-mails actually said. On Thursday, more than 1,700 British scientists released a statement saying they continue to have “the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.”

HOLLYWOOD — Former Gov. Sarah Palin made a surprise appearance on “The Tonight Show” Friday to poke fun at actor William Shatner, who has repeatedly lampooned Palin’s speaking and writing styles.

Shatner has shown up on “Tonight” several times since it premiered in June with Conan O’Brien as the host to read various Palin missives — from her resignation speech to Tweets to passages from “Going Rogue” — in the style of a beat poet.

He did so again Friday, only this time Palin emerged from backstage after he finished to return the favor, reading excerpts from Shatner’s autobiography.

A request – for the past several years we have been trying to find a certain American top ten song about Hanukkah. We have had no success. The song we are looking for was a top ten hit in the 50s or 60s and is the first Hanukkah song ever on the American top ten charts. It’s a very bouncy lively tune and might reference the festival of lights or dreidels.

The song very much pre-dates the Adam Sandler Chanukkah Song. It is also not, Hanukkah Harry or songs/skits of that sort. We have been looking for this song ever since we heard it played on the radio and the DJ briefly discussed the history of the song being the first Hanukkah song hit. It’s a great song and we would like to get it or a Youtube version of it. Our searches have come to naught (and we are good lexis/nexis and google researchers). Any information anyone might have would be appreciated.

It would be nice to find and play the song before the holidays are over.

MANAMA, Dec 12 (Reuters) – Iran needs up to 15 nuclear plants to generate electricity, its foreign minister said on Saturday, underlining Tehran’s determination to press ahead with a programme the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.

Manouchehr Mottaki, addressing a security conference in Bahrain, also cast further doubt on a U.N.-drafted nuclear fuel deal meant to allay international concern about the Islamic Republic’s atomic ambitions.

“First I think we could just totally abandon the whole thing or we could propose something more moderate, a kind of middle way … Iran has done that,” he said.

Iran has sought key amendments to the proposed deal, under which it would transfer stocks of low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad and receive fuel in return for a medical research reactor. Tehran says it could produce the fuel itself if it is not able to obtain it from abroad.

The proposal to farm out most of Iran’s LEU reserves is aimed at minimising the risk of the country refining the material to the 80-90 percent grade suitable for a weapon.

Iran, the world’s fifth-largest crude exporter, says its nuclear programme is aimed at generating electricity so that it can export more of its gas and oil. “We need 10 to 15 nuclear plants to generate electricity in our country,” Mottaki said. Iran curently has one nuclear power plant, under construction by Russia.

On Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he expected the international community to impose significant additional sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

Iranian officials have repeatedly shrugged off the impact of such punitive measures. “It would be better not to experience that again,” Mottaki said, referring to possible new sanctions.

TURKISH, SAUDI INVOLVEMENT?

Earlier this month, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Iran needed 20 uranium enrichment plants to provide fuel for its nuclear power plants. That announcement came less than a week after Tehran said it would build 10 more sites like its Natanz underground facility, a statement that further heightened tension with major powers involved in efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to the row.

The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month voted to rebuke Iran for building a second enrichment plant in secret, near the holy city of Qom.

Refined uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants or, if enriched much further, provide material for bombs.

Separately on Saturday, an Iranian news agency said four inspectors from the U.N. nuclear agency watchdog had arrived to inspect the newly-disclosed enrichment site near Qom. It would be the fourth such visit to the site, ILNA news agency added, describing it as a regular inspection. It said such inspections should take place once a month, under an agreement between Iran and the Vienna-based agency.

Asked in Manama if Saudi Arabia or Turkey should join talks between Iran and the six major powers — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — Mottaki said: “There is no limit to the members of 5+1 (six powers). We believe other countries from the region could participate in the talks.”

If Mo’s Imaculation outfit was a Wilma Flintstone knockoff made of shredded toilet paper than this entrail-gray puffy number looks like padded and quilted strait jacket material dipped in mud and then seamed into rows for more texture or something.

In trying to minimize the importance of “ClimateGate,” Al Gore sounds like the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

During a CNN interview, Gore downplayed the meaning of the emails at the center of the controversy by saying, “Well, they took a few phrases out of context. These are private e-mails, more than 10 years old, and they’ve tried to blow it up into something that it’s really not.”

Like Dorothy’s dog Toto, the posting of emails and documents on the internet from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has pulled back the green curtain on the secret world of leading climate scientists, exposing a disturbing pattern of apparent scientific misconduct.

Most concerning, the scientists involved played a key role in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the body responsible for producing the reports on global warming politicians use to justify mammoth interferences in the free market such as the Kyoto Treaty and cap-and-trade legislation.

These disclosures are a serious blow to Gore and to global warming alarmists at the United Nations and elsewhere.

While it’s easy for Gore to dismiss the significance of “ClimateGate” and continue to skip down the yellow brick road, concerns of scientific fraud in global warming research is an inconvenient truth for the CEOs who have banked on cap-and-trade legislation as a business strategy.

Of the disparate corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership – the lobbying coalition of corporations and environmental special interest groups pushing for cap-and-trade – utility companies seem especially vulnerable to “ClimateGate” unravelling the scientific credibility of the IPCC’s man-made global warming claims.

“ClimateGate” poses a dilemma for Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and Exelon CEO John Rowe, two of the most outspoken supporters of cap-and-trade, because their companies have specifically said they are relying on the IPCC’s conclusion as the scientific basis to call for government-imposed emissions limits.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in October, Exelon’s Rowe said, “We believe that the climate change science is settled …The IPCC has declared that evidence for a discernible warming of the planet’s climate system is now “unequivocal” – and has warned that much larger changes are in store if we don’t begin reducing global emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and do it soon.”

A Duke report on global warming states, “…our policy positions are driven by the IPCC peer-reviewed science and by our judgment that this science is not only credible, but that it is accepted by the vast majority of public policymakers who will shape U.S. climate legislation in the years to come.”

Both Rogers and Rowe have taken a very high public profile in calling for cap-and-trade. In addition to testifying in Congress, these CEOs formed a partnership with the Environmental Defense Action Fund (EDAF) to promote cap-and-trade through TV and print advertising campaigns. The ads, paid for by EDAF, can be found at http://www.asmarcap.com. Profit is the motivation. In an interview, Rowe said, “We don’t flinch from the charge that, yes, some of our motivation and enthusiasm comes from the fact that we should make money on it if it happens.”

To be sure, cap-and-trade could generate windfall profits for Exelon. Rowe reportedly has told investors that cap-and-trade could boost earnings by about $1.5 billion a year.

With billions at stake, it’s no wonder CEOs would skip over the finer points of global warming research and use conclusions that conveniently generate huge profits while making them appear to be concerned about the state of the planet.

Unlike Gore, however, Rogers and Rowe lead publicly-traded companies with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders that compels them to act in the best interest of their investors. Such a responsibility includes a requirement that decisions must be based on the best available information that is reasonably discoverable.

Accordingly, Rogers and Rowe, along with other CEOs lobbying for cap-and-trade, should conduct an independent investigation of “ClimatgeGate” to determine its impact on the soundness of the IPCC’s conclusion.

These CEOs must exercise their fiduciary responsibility by carefully assessing whether they have been duped by a group of rogue climate change scientists. Thanks to “ClimateGate,” the burden of proof is now on the CEOs to show their global warming policy is sound.

Until the cloud clears on the IPCC report, companies should immediately cease lobbying for nationwide laws to cap emission limits.

Companies actively seeking emissions limits are clearly at a crossroads. With shareholders’ money at stake, they can ignore the importance of “ClimateGate” or they can exercise prudence and seriously examine the issues raised by this controversy. The billions CEOs hope to make from cap-and-trade could easily disappear if the scientific underpinnings of the IPCC report vanish into thin air.

Vahidi praised Syria’s great potential in defense and military fields and said that “it is natural for a country like Syria -which has an inhumane and menace predator like Israel in its neighborhood – to be always prepared [against possible foreign aggression].” His visit to Syria comes a week after Saeed Jalili, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, also visited Damascus.

Iran’s treaty with Syria comes just as Western countries are warning Teheran that it it fails to respond to overtures intended to make its nuclear program transparent, it will face sanctions.

But as Iran was cementing its ties with Syria, the United States emphasized that its patience in waiting for a diplomatic response from Iran to its overtures is running thin. In a Wall Street Journal interview published on Friday, White House National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said that “Iran still controls its destiny on [the nuclear] issue.” The door to the diplomatic process would “stay open as long as we could leave it open … but it’s not going to stay open much longer.”

According to Jones, the parties involved in negotiations with Teheran wish most of all that Iran’s leaders would “give a clear statement of policy with regard to their future ambitions concerning the development of nuclear weapons and the delivery means to go with them.” “As long as there’s an open question on both of those issues, then Iran is just asking the world to trust them,” he stated. “They think they can withstand anything the UN or the coalition of like-minded nations can put together. They might be right. They might be wrong.”

“If Iran pivots and does the right thing, whether it’s December 30 or January 20, that’s what everybody wants,” he concluded.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton questioned whether Iran had indeed any intention of coming clean on its nuclear program.
Speaking with Al Jazzera TV of the West’s offer of dialogue with Iran, Clinton said “[the Iranians] had first agreed in principle, and then I think because of internal disputes, they backed off from that, raising a lot of questions about what their true intentions are. Obviously, the secret facility at Qom was revealed. They now say they want 10 or 20 new nuclear power plants.”

“It’s not confidence building, let us say. And I think the international community really still wants to engage with Iran, but people are going to now turn to other routes like more pressure, like sanctions to try to change their mind and their behavior,” Clinton said.

I believe That Tiger did the right thing in owning up to his infidelities and taking a time-out and do some serious and hard work to try and save his marriage.What he has done is very common with men more than we realize.There is plenty of bait out there and a lot of fish to reel in but he did not use taxpayer money like a lot of our elected officials.I believe Tiger should run for political office.He is the world’s greatest golfer,a billionaire,anexpert on stimulus packages,alarge contributer to youth improvement life and character.He could chair the financial commitee and he readily admits to bing half black and white.Obama ran as half black to garner supporters and promised restitution and retribution and now while they are waiting for the stash he promised,he turned to being white for the bigtime money source people.Obama promises everything and contributes nothing.Tiger will be back and better than ever because he is like so many other men with the same problems.

By ABM90 Oh Hillary we need you now more than ever before.Please make another run for the Presidency.The world is waiting and hoping and you will be elected for you are too important to be cast aside as the media and big business interests are squelching all news about you and your relation ship with world leaders.

In trying to minimize the importance of “ClimateGate,” Al Gore sounds like the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

During a CNN interview, Gore downplayed the meaning of the emails at the center of the controversy by saying, “Well, they took a few phrases out of context. These are private e-mails, more than 10 years old, and they’ve tried to blow it up into something that it’s really not.”

Like Dorothy’s dog Toto, the posting of emails and documents on the internet from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has pulled back the green curtain on the secret world of leading climate scientists, exposing a disturbing pattern of apparent scientific misconduct.

Most concerning, the scientists involved played a key role in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the body responsible for producing the reports on global warming politicians use to justify mammoth interferences in the free market such as the Kyoto Treaty and cap-and-trade legislation.

These disclosures are a serious blow to Gore and to global warming alarmists at the United Nations and elsewhere.

While it’s easy for Gore to dismiss the significance of “ClimateGate” and continue to skip down the yellow brick road, concerns of scientific fraud in global warming research is an inconvenient truth for the CEOs who have banked on cap-and-trade legislation as a business strategy.

Of the disparate corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership – the lobbying coalition of corporations and environmental special interest groups pushing for cap-and-trade – utility companies seem especially vulnerable to “ClimateGate” unravelling the scientific credibility of the IPCC’s man-made global warming claims.

“ClimateGate” poses a dilemma for Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and Exelon CEO John Rowe, two of the most outspoken supporters of cap-and-trade, because their companies have specifically said they are relying on the IPCC’s conclusion as the scientific basis to call for government-imposed emissions limits.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in October, Exelon’s Rowe said, “We believe that the climate change science is settled …The IPCC has declared that evidence for a discernible warming of the planet’s climate system is now “unequivocal” – and has warned that much larger changes are in store if we don’t begin reducing global emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and do it soon.”

A Duke report on global warming states, “…our policy positions are driven by the IPCC peer-reviewed science and by our judgment that this science is not only credible, but that it is accepted by the vast majority of public policymakers who will shape U.S. climate legislation in the years to come.”

Both Rogers and Rowe have taken a very high public profile in calling for cap-and-trade. In addition to testifying in Congress, these CEOs formed a partnership with the Environmental Defense Action Fund (EDAF) to promote cap-and-trade through TV and print advertising campaigns. The ads, paid for by EDAF, can be found at http://www.asmarcap.com. Profit is the motivation. In an interview, Rowe said, “We don’t flinch from the charge that, yes, some of our motivation and enthusiasm comes from the fact that we should make money on it if it happens.”

To be sure, cap-and-trade could generate windfall profits for Exelon. Rowe reportedly has told investors that cap-and-trade could boost earnings by about $1.5 billion a year.

With billions at stake, it’s no wonder CEOs would skip over the finer points of global warming research and use conclusions that conveniently generate huge profits while making them appear to be concerned about the state of the planet.

Unlike Gore, however, Rogers and Rowe lead publicly-traded companies with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders that compels them to act in the best interest of their investors. Such a responsibility includes a requirement that decisions must be based on the best available information that is reasonably discoverable.

Accordingly, Rogers and Rowe, along with other CEOs lobbying for cap-and-trade, should conduct an independent investigation of “ClimatgeGate” to determine its impact on the soundness of the IPCC’s conclusion.

These CEOs must exercise their fiduciary responsibility by carefully assessing whether they have been duped by a group of rogue climate change scientists. Thanks to “ClimateGate,” the burden of proof is now on the CEOs to show their global warming policy is sound.

Until the cloud clears on the IPCC report, companies should immediately cease lobbying for nationwide laws to cap emission limits.

Companies actively seeking emissions limits are clearly at a crossroads. With shareholders’ money at stake, they can ignore the importance of “ClimateGate” or they can exercise prudence and seriously examine the issues raised by this controversy. The billions CEOs hope to make from cap-and-trade could easily disappear if the scientific underpinnings of the IPCC report vanish into thin air.

I was listening to three lawyers–one a law professor enthusing about Obama. One said he is the man of the hour. One said he is so brave. The third said he is so perfect that neither extreme likes him. They asked me what I thought and I told them they were delusional. They told me that it unrealistic for people to expect him to solve the problems in one year. I told them that the people who believed that simply accepted what he said at face value, and most sentient being now realize they were deceived. I thought about it further and wrote what you see below. The list does not purport to be exhaustive, but suggests how anti Obama themes can be marshaled to different types of audiences. When desperate and naive people engage in magic thinking and invest all their hopes and dreams in an untested man to solve all of their problems, it is hardly surprising that he would take all of us over a cliff which is exactly what he is doing now.
————————————————————————————————–

THE ESSENTIAL TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
(Based on common sense as opposed to magic thinking)

1. He has no sense of the economy or business*

2. He is petty, vindictive and throws supporters under the bus

3. He is the personification of the Chicago Machine*

4. He poses as a visionary leader but is in fact a shallow patsy*

5. He is a Citizen of the World rather than a bona fide American

6. He is the bottom to a dangerous bureaucrat named Pelosi*

7. He is madly in love with himself and craves to be worshiped*

8. He deceived us into believing he is something he is not

9. He takes his marching orders from Global Predator Soros inter alia

10. He is destroying our nation, our liberty and mortgaging out future

ClimateGate” poses a dilemma for Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and Exelon CEO John Rowe, two of the most outspoken supporters of cap-and-trade, because their companies have specifically said they are relying on the IPCC’s conclusion as the scientific basis to call for government-imposed emissions limits.
———————————-
Nuclear power whores looking to advance their interests at the expense of the middle class. No more to say about them. Their opinion should be rejected accordingly.

ADMIN, I went to you tube for this one and found a list of others, such as a Chanukah folksong medley, and one which basically is a Happy CH message, and so on. The one for the URL above also explains the meaning of the holiday… freedom from oppression etc

Found this at realclearpolitics:
You Will Lose Your Private Health Insurance by Robert Tracinski

…”When you understand what this bill does, you can see why the Democrats would be happy to compromise and drop the public option-for now. This bill so comprehensively wrecks private health insurance that pretty soon a “public option” will seem like the only alternative, and they will already have put into place one of the new taxes needed to pay for it. If the left’s goal is to impose socialized medicine in America, this bill does it in the most callous and destructive way possible. It smashes private health care-then leaves us stranded in the rubble, at which point we will be expected to come crawling back to the same people who caused the disaster and ask them to save us.

That is the final and perhaps most compelling reason to kill this bill: the sheer arrogance of the whole enterprise. It is the arrogance of stampeding an unwilling public toward a monstrous 2,000-page piece of legislation while admitting that it still has huge problems, but promising that it will all somehow be fixed later on. It’s the arrogance of selling us a bill that expands government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while telling us that it will reduce the deficit. It is the sheer unmitigated gall of appointing a bureaucrat to run a government-controlled insurance market that takes away all of our health choices-and then calling this bureaucrat the Health Choices Commissioner.

That’s the kind of government arrogance that has to be smacked down hard, and that alone is reason to demand that your senator reject this vicious bill in its entirety.

I am glad they are at least calling it Obamacare. That’s what it is, or we could call Nancy’s gift to the middle class for Christmas.

I posted an article last night talking about China’s one child policy and how that Soros and Zbig just love the idea of it. It was the talk of Copenhaugen that that policy alone would help the global climate crisis.

So let me say this, how in the world are TWO Americans for this obviously communist policy still running our govt. via their POTUS PUPPET??? They are going to tell us how much it will cost us to breath, how much water will cost us and now how many children we can have??? I NOW can see why red and yellow lights lite up the empire state building in New York for China, that is, COMMUNIST CHINA!!

I wonder when the brain dead kool-aid drinkers are going to wake up and smell the roses, our country is turning into a communist one, and might I add, it will not be long at this rate?

Let me add this to my previous post. Hillary went to China and made a historic speech about this very same policy, so HOW in the world did this one child policy get play in Copenhaugen. I guess Hillary wasn’t there, gee, I wonder how she would feel about what was discussed there?? I wonder if she would ok it, especially since most people would want a son which would not be something she would be for. Killing or aborting girl babies isn’t Hillary Clinton’s policy, never was, never will be.

Admin: I happened to be looking at some of the trials which arose under colonial law as a part of a larger project. The working premise is the path of the law tends to reflect the zeitgeist of the era. One of the cases we looked at was the Salem witch trial and all that went on there. Seventeen people five of them men were hung as witches. Others went clinically insane. They were accused and if they confessed and implicated others then they were spared the gallows. If they did not confess they were convicted on the basis of spectral evidence, which is to say evidence that cannot be seen, but is manifest through its effects. Boston theologian Cotton Mathur was in the middle of this and was part of the problem. Thus it fell upon his own father, also a theologian from the Puritan school to write it is better that 10 witches go free than that one innocent be convicted–from whence cometh the common phrase that it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted. The hysteria died down finally, when he charges spread to established members of the community including the governors wife, and when people stood up to power and refused to confess. This has direct application to the tyrant Obama and ungoing attempt to roll over our Constitution and civil liberties. I live for the day when the left wakes up to this inescapable fact.

The other case that had relevance to this discussion was the Zenger case in New York City in the very year that George Washington was born–1732. Narrowly, it involved a legal fight between the governor and ex governor over the disposition of monies produced by the colony. The governor got half of the income of the colony in lieu of a salary. But the target was a German immigrant who wrote a newspaper critical of the sitting governor, who was a vain, megalomaniacal man like Obama. He was charged with seditious libel and the deck was stacked against him. He spent six months in jail before he ever appeared in court. Meanwhile his supporters hired an attorney from the neighboring colony who was from Philadelphia and was the best trial lawyer of that generation. His name was Andrew Hamilton. The law at that time was that truth was NOT a defense to seditious libel and as Blackstone said the greater the truth the greater the libel. Nevertheless he was acquitted not by the court but by the jury. As a result truth became an absolute defense.

If you think of that case in the current context, the Obama administration has a similar compulsion to suppress the truth and to destroy its critics. His attacks upon FOX NEWS (which is on our side 50% of the time, which is bad but far better than his acolytes at NBC, and New York Times who are never on our side). Also, you can see it in the words of Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina (formerly Chief of Staff to Reid) who admonished thugs to physically attack people at tea parties which resulted in the assault on the black conservative in St Louis. The words of Hamilton are a distant mirror of what we are facing today. It is a tribute to them and to you.

Hamilton’s closing argument:

“The Question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, is not of
small nor private concern, it is not the cause of a poor Printer, nor of New-
York alone, which you are now trying: No! It may in its consequence, affect
every Freeman that lives under a British Government on the main of America,
It is the best Cause. It is the cause of Liberty, and I make no Doubt but that
your upright conduct, this Day, will not only entitle you to the Love and
Esteem of your Fellow Citizens; but every man who prefers Freedom to a Life
of Slavery will bless and honour You, as Men who have Baffled the attempt
of Tyranny; . . . by . . . securing to ourselves, our Posterity, and our
Neighbours, that to which Nature and the Laws of our Country have given us
a Right, – the Liberty . . . of exposing and opposing arbitrary Power . . . by
speaking and writing truth.”7

When a man like Messina tells a group of hopped up union supporters who are thuggish to begin with to push back against tea party people twice as hard, he understands–and intends the natural and probable consequences of his words which is that they will commmit an assault.

ClimateGate” poses a dilemma for Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and Exelon CEO John Rowe, two of the most outspoken supporters of cap-and-trade, because their companies have specifically said they are relying on the IPCC’s conclusion as the scientific basis to call for government-imposed emissions limits.
———————————-
Nuclear power whores looking to advance their interests at the expense of the middle class. No more to say about them. Their opinion should be rejected accordingly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree. What this scam is about has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans as Gore professes. The earth’s temperature rises and falls
in cyclical variations of it’s own accord unrelated to CO2 emissions. (As determined at congressional hearings when questioned by Rep Barton.) The fact of the matter is perhaps in the polar zones the earth is warming but in the zone surrounding the Americas, the earth is cooling. Whereas, if the EPA taxes private CO2 emissions, scientists can actually show the program is a success after 5yrs because in the beginning their numbers were altered showing the earth was warming, when in fact the earth was actually cooling on it’s own, natural to the earth’s cycle.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) stated on December 11 that the federal government must borrow at least $1.8 trillion more in 2010 if the United States is to avoid defaulting on its debts. This would be over and above the current $12.1 trillion national debt limit.

Democrats are trying to stick together to pass a bill that would raise the federal debt ceiling to $14 trillion. By doing this now, they hope to avoid dealing with the issue closer to next year’s midterm elections.

Yet the politically unpopular move of putting the nation deeper into debt is being resisted by more than 50 moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats. They are vowing to withhold their votes unless a “pay-as-you-go” law is included in the debt-increase legislation.

A pay-as-you-go law aims to ensure that tax cuts or spending programs don’t add to the deficit (as opposed to eliminating or even reducing projected deficits). It would require that any new spending would be offset by either cutting other spending or increasing revenue (i.e., tax hikes), and it would enact across-the-board spending cuts if Congress fails to abide by the law.

Also causing disunity within the Democratic Party are about a dozen Senate Democrats who say they won’t vote for an increase in the federal debt unless a commission of lawmakers and administration officials is set up to address deficit reduction. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats such as Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) oppose this move.

Hoyer has pledged to attach a strict “pay-as-go” budget law to any legislation that increases the debt limit. He said that negotiations are under way to deal with the concerns regarding pay-as-you-go and the federal deficit.

Almost 50 Republicans in the House are also making their own attempt to thwart an increase in the national debt. Congress has already raised the limit seven times since 2002, so they have co-sponsored a bill that would make it more difficult for Congress to raise the debt ceiling. However, it is unlikely that such legislation could pass in time to do any good for the current debate. “We need to restore fiscal responsibility in Washington and put an end to this out-of-control spending and massive debt that’s being dumped onto our children and grandchildren,” Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.) said in a written statement. Scalise and Representative Kevin Brady (R-Texas) introduced legislation on December 11 that would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate to raise the national debt ceiling. The bill would also prevent legislators from attaching such a measure to any other budget bill.

But Scalise’s spokesman, Luke Bolar, noted that this will probably be too little too late to stop the Democrats from increasing the limit this year. He said the legislation will likely only be able to make any future attempts more difficult.
“The whole legislative process would not happen in time for this round of appropriations,” Bolar declared. “Ideally you could get it through and pass it as fast as possible.”

It is probable that the Democrats will attach their increased borrowing measure to the Defense spending bill. Scalise has called on Pelosi to let the defense bill stand alone, saying that linking the debt-ceiling increase to troop funding is shameless.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of the Democrats: “They have made a habit of taking defense appropriation bills, bills that fund the support of our troops, and adding on there the most distasteful things they can think of, trying to make sure they get it passed on the backs of our soldiers. It’s a bad way of doing business.”

Running the national government on a deficit is akin to living on credit cards; the interest will eventually exceed the borrower’s ability to repay. Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said on December 10 that the U.S. government is broke and should be focusing on its need for fiscal responsibility. Gregg said this “is not a theoretical problem — it is directly in front of us.” He issued the dire warning that “the nation will go bankrupt” if spending is not brought under control.

The danger within is even worse than we expected.The man without a country and no tangible record of where he was born and what he has accomplished since being implanted in to political machine of Chicago by Rezko and Daley.I fear for the life and family of Glenn Beck.He makes a real case for Impeachment and no effort by the media to follw through and do some honest investigating.None of this would have happened if the DNC had not stolen Hillary’s numbers and given them to the racer called “The Flexible Flier”aka Barack Hussein Obama”.

———————————————————————

Leftie News: Matt Taibbi, who penned Obama’s Big Sellout. The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway at Rolling Stone, is all in a dither and can’t quite figure out how THIS happened:

Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” …

Then he got elected.

What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

How could Obama let this happen? Is he just a rookie in the political big leagues, hoodwinked by Beltway old-timers? Or is the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests we’ve been seeing on TV this fall who Obama really is?

One word answer, Matt: Duh!

Taibbi writes: “How did we get here? It started just moments after the election — and almost nobody noticed.’

One word answer, Matt: No!

Lots of us noticed. We noticed before the primaries. We noticed during the primaries. We noticed during the run-up to the general election. In fact, we’ve been noticing for a long time; it has been almost impossible NOT to notice — unless you’re a Lobotobot, that is. Which you are. Your bad.

More Leftie News: David Frum sputters that POTUS gave a graceless Nobel speech:

The Nobel address was Obama at his worst or near-worst. Let’s count the ways. …

First Obama tells us how humble he is. Then he tells us that he is bending history in the direction of justice – a phrase that associates himself with Martin Luther King. Charming.

But it gets worse. The slightness of Obama’s achievements is (the president says) only a partial and lesser reason for the controversy over the prize. The “most profound” reason that the award has been so disparaged is … George W. Bush! Yes, Obama’s prize is controversial because the country is fighting two wars, one of which it did not seek – but the other of which we apparently did seek. Or rather – that George W. Bush sought.

While the one war is an effort of self-defense , the other is … not.

While the one war mustered an international coalition deserving of respect, the other mustered an international coalition that is … not. …

The Nobel address highlights President Obama’s inability to share credit with any identifiable human being – or to speak of his nation’s accomplishments in any but the most round-about and apologetic ways.